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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, 11, 14, 15, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “a controller” should read “the controller” as the limitation has antecedence in line 5.
In claim 2, line 2, “request a user to” should read “request the user to”.
In claim 3, line 1, “a controller” should read “the controller”.
In claim 6, line 1, “a controller” should read “the controller”.
In claim 11, line 3, “for a predefined” should read “for the predefined”.
In claim 11, line 4, “with a determination” should read “with the determination”.
In claim 14, line 10, “a controller” should read “the controller”.
In claim 15, line 2, “a controller” should read “the controller”.
In claim 18, line 12, “a controller” should read “the controller”.
In claim 19, lines 1-2, “a controller” should read “the controller”.
In claim 20, line 3, “request a user to” should read “request the user to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 14, and 18 recite the limitation “displaying a VR user interface based on a driver license issuing requirement” (emphasis added) wherein a driver license issuing requirement is not defined by the specification and is not a known term of art with regard to creating a 3D environment. While the specification in paragraphs 0107, 0113-0115, and 0117 discuss the requirements including a moving traffic scene with a disturbance determined based on the requirement and the requirement including a predefined duration of time, the exact nature of a driver license issuing requirement is not defined and would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As the claim invention is a computer implemented method/system, per MPEP 2161.01, both the algorithm and hardware for performing the functions must be sufficiently detailed and explained in the specification so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. This limitation is not sufficiently described such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the requirements are determined/set and the implementation of the requirements to create the 3D environment. Examiner notes that for the sake of compact prosecution the limitation is interpreted as the simulation/VR settings including duration and the environment including a moving traffic scene and “disturbance”.
Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from the rejected independent claims.
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 12 and 14-17 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “selecting the predefined duration of time based on a type of the moving traffic scene” but the specification fails to provide sufficient support for what the “type of moving traffic scene” means as paragraphs 0114 and 0222 recite the limitation verbatim but do not provide further explanation or description of what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as a “type” of moving traffic scene. Therefore, the limitation renders the claim unclear and thereby indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vision test" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 10, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Leung et al. (US PGPub 20170273552), hereinafter referred to as Leung.
With regard to claims 1, 14, and 18, Leung teaches a method for implementing a vision test [claim 1] (Paragraphs 0055, 0057; “methods”), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device having an HMD [claim 14] (Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0055 teach the methods may be implemented as stored code or instructions in a storage media wherein the code is executed by one or more processors of the system including an HMD), and an electronic device [claim 18] (Paragraphs 0025, 0027-0028, “computing device 230”), comprising:
at an electronic device including a head-mounted display (HMD) (Paragraphs 0025, 0027-0028 teach a computing device and system including an HMD), one or more processor, and memory [claim 1] (Paragraphs 0024, 0032, 0055 teach the computing device includes one or more processors and a memory):
an HMD (Paragraphs 0024-0025; “HMD”); one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors the one or more programs including instructions for [claim 18] (Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0055 teach the methods may be implemented as stored code or instructions in a storage media wherein the code is executed by one or more processors of the system including an HMD):
establishing a communication link between the electronic device and a controller held by a user associated with the electronic device (Paragraphs 0027, 0033, 0039 teach the system can include one or more input devices including a controller wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to the computing device and HMD in order to transmit and receive signals);
executing a user application configured to enable the vision test (Paragraphs 0026, 0039, 0041-0043, 0055, 0059 teach the system can execute various visual tests and simulations for testing visual ability of a user wherein the simulations can be rendered and generated by the system by implementing computer readable code/program (application));
displaying a VR user interface based on a driver license issuing requirement to create a 3D virtual environment (Paragraphs 0023, 0032, 0039 teach the system generates standardized environments and objectively measures user performance wherein the task can be driving a vehicle from one location to another without colliding with any objects), the VR user interface including a moving traffic scene on which one or more visual stimuli are displayed (Paragraphs 0029, 0039, 0042 teach the system generates simulations which can include a driving simulation including stationary and dynamic objects (one or more stimuli) including moving vehicles (traffic)); and
driving one or more actuators of a controller in synchronization with displaying the VR user interface (Paragraphs 0027, 0033, 0039 teach the system can provide tactile vibration via the controller (driving one or more actuators) based on the user colliding with a VR object in the VR environment).
With regard to claims 2 and 20, Leung further teaches further comprising: generating a user instruction to request a user to provide a user input via the controller in response to displaying the one or more visual stimuli (Paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0044 teach the system can present instructions to the user to complete the task including driving from one location to another by operating the VR vehicle by manipulating the controller (user input) to provide responses to avoid collisions with the displayed VR objects (visual stimuli)).
With regard to claim 7, Leung further teaches wherein the one or more actuators of the controller are driven to send a reminder to the user indicating a traffic situation (It is noted that “a reminder” is not narrowly defined in the specification and is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as any feedback related to the “traffic situation”; Paragraphs 0027, 0033, 0039 teach the system can provide a tactile vibration/cue based on an event of collision (traffic situation)).
With regard to claim 10, Leung further teaches further comprising: based on the driver license issuing requirement, determining a disturbance associated with the moving traffic scene (Paragraph 0039 teaches the simulation can include various objects that the user is avoiding as part of the task and detects collisions (disturbances) with the objects by the subject); based on the disturbance, playing an audio message in synchronization with driving the one or more actuators of the controller and displaying the VR user interface (Paragraphs 0027, 0039 teach the system can provide tactile vibrations (driving actuators) and audio cues when a collision (disturbance) occurs).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung in view of Kudo et al. (US PGPub 20250236334), hereinafter referred to as Kudo.
With regard to claims 3 and 15, Leung may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more actuators are configured to vibrate the controller with a vibration scale. However, Kudo teaches a steering system for a virtual reality simulation for steering a virtual mobile body wherein the controller vibrates based on a predetermined oscillation based on a received signal wherein the vibration/reaction force is based on a provided current (it is noted that a vibration scale is interpreted as a setting/adjustable range of vibration) wherein the current can be adjusted to adjust the vibration (Abstract; Paragraphs 0058-0059, 0061, 0066, 0069, 0071).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Kudo by applying the technique of controlling the vibration based on a control signal and/or current level to simulate vehicle vibrations of Kudo to the driving test/simulation using the tactile vibration of Leung, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated user experiences including driving a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by programming the tactile vibration and/or motor of the input device such as a controller to provide vibration based on a control signal wherein the vibration adjusts based on the simulated conditions and vehicle behavior. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include wherein the one or more actuators are configured to vibrate the controller with a vibration scale. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kudo with Leung’s system and method in order to increase realism of the simulation and provide realistic sensation to the user (Kudo Paragraph 0069).
With regard to claims 4 and 16, Leung further teaches further comprising: identifying a presumed speed of a virtual vehicle associated with the vision test (Paragraph 0039 teaches the navigation speed can be changed by the user/subject using an accelerator and/or a brake controller and the VR environment and VR graphics change in response to the subject’s controls/inputs); setting a scene changing rate based on the presumed speed (Paragraph 0039 teaches the navigation speed can be changed by the user/subject using an accelerator and/or a brake controller and the VR environment and VR graphics change (scene changing rate) in response to the subject’s controls/inputs); wherein during an extended duration of time, the moving traffic scene is dynamically generated based on the scene changing rate (Paragraph 0039 teaches the navigation speed can be changed by the user/subject using an accelerator and/or a brake controller and the VR environment and VR graphics change (scene changing rate) in response to the subject’s controls/inputs), but may not explicitly teach setting the vibration scale based on the presumed speed; and the controller is dynamically vibrated based on the vibration scale. However, Kudo further teaches the degree of vibration of the simulated/virtual vehicle and thereby the controller can change according to the speed of the virtual vehicle based on the extent of the accelerator or brake operation by the user (Paragraphs 0069, 0074, 0076, 0087).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Kudo by applying the technique of controlling the vibration based on a control signal and/or current level to simulate vehicle vibrations based in part on the virtual vehicle speed of Kudo to the driving test/simulation using the tactile vibration of Leung, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated user experiences including driving a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by programming the tactile vibration and/or motor of the input device such as a controller to provide vibration based on a control signal wherein the vibration adjusts based on the simulated conditions and vehicle behavior including adjusting the vibration based on the speed of the virtual vehicle based on the user’s operation of the accelerator and/or brake. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include setting the vibration scale based on the presumed speed; and the controller is dynamically vibrated based on the vibration scale. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kudo with Leung’s system and method in order to increase realism of the simulation and provide realistic sensation to the user (Kudo Paragraph 0069).
With regard to claims 5 and 17, Leung further teaches setting a scene changing rate; wherein during a shortened duration of time, the moving traffic scene is generated based on the scene changing rate (Paragraph 0039 teaches the navigation speed can be changed by the user/subject using an accelerator and/or a brake controller and the VR environment and VR graphics change (scene changing rate) in response to the subject’s controls/inputs), but may not explicitly teach further comprising adding a virtual road bump effect to the moving traffic scene, including: setting a road bumpiness level; setting the vibration scale based on the road bumpiness level; and setting a scene changing rate based on the road bumpiness level; wherein the controller is vibrated based on the vibration scale. However, Kudo further teaches the system provides vibration/oscillation of the controller based on a virtual road surface condition (road bumpiness) wherein the vibration is based on signal sent/current level corresponding to the surface condition and any irregularities in the road surface (Paragraphs 0057, 0066, 0069, 0076, 0087).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Kudo by applying the technique of controlling the vibration based on a control signal and/or current level to simulate vehicle vibrations based in part on the virtual road surface condition and irregularities of Kudo to the driving test/simulation using the tactile vibration of Leung, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated user experiences including driving a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by programming the tactile vibration and/or motor of the input device such as a controller to provide vibration based on a control signal wherein the vibration adjusts based on the simulated conditions and vehicle behavior including adjusting the vibration based on the virtual road surface condition and irregularities and wherein the simulation/VR environment would include the surface conditions and irregularities as part of the simulated scene. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include further comprising adding a virtual road bump effect to the moving traffic scene, including: setting a road bumpiness level; setting the vibration scale based on the road bumpiness level; and setting a scene changing rate based on the road bumpiness level; wherein the controller is vibrated based on the vibration scale. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kudo with Leung’s system and method in order to increase realism of the simulation and provide realistic sensation to the user (Kudo Paragraph 0069).
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung in view of Yi et al. (US PGPub 20180116601), hereinafter referred to as Yi.
With regard to claims 6 and 19, Leung may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more actuators of a controller are configured to heat the controller held by the user. However, Yi teaches a method for providing thermal feedback during a virtual reality application wherein the controller outputs heat as a thermal feedback to the user including providing thermal feedback for a virtual collision (Abstract; Paragraphs 0521, 0702, 0705, 0716-0718).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Yi by including a thermoelectric element in the controller and applying the technique of controlling the element to provide thermal feedback to a user of Yi to the driving test/simulation of Leung, as, while the references are directed to different fields of endeavor, the references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated user experiences (similar systems/devices) and one of ordinary skill in the art would except applying the teachings of Yi to improve Leung in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by including a thermoelectric element in the controller/input device and programming the device to output heat as thermal feedback to the user based on the VR simulation and environment. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include wherein the one or more actuators of a controller are configured to heat the controller held by the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yi with Leung’s system and method in order to increase user immersion in the simulation and provide realistic sensation to the user (Yi Paragraphs 0521, 0705).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung in view of Lawton et al. (US PGPub 20180189994), hereinafter referred to as Lawton, and further in view of Sha et al. (US PGPub 20230215288), hereinafter referred to as Sha.
With regard to claim 8, Leung may not explicitly teach further comprising: obtaining a sequence of eye images; while displaying the VR user interface, tracking a focus level of the user based on the sequence of eye images, wherein the one or more actuators of the controller are driven in accordance with a determination that the focus level of the user drops below a predefined focus level. However, Lawton teaches a system and method for determining a user’s state including an engagement level of the user wearing an augmented reality device/headset wherein the device includes sensors such as still image cameras or video cameras capturing images of the user including the user’s eyes, receiving a user’s pupil dilation, and determining a user’s engagement (focus level) based on the images and data including pupil dilation (Paragraphs 0031, 0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Lawton by including an image or video camera sensor in the headset and applying the technique of determining a user’s engagement level based on the captured sensor data of Lawton to the system and HMD of Leung, as, while the references are directed to different fields of endeavor, the references and the claimed invention are directed to systems using head worn devices using AR/VR technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would except applying the teachings of Lawton to improve Leung in the same way by allowing the system to monitor user focus/engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by including a camera sensor in the HMD and programming the device to track user pupil dilation by capturing video/images of the user’s eyes and determining the user’s engagement level. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include further comprising: obtaining a sequence of eye images; while displaying the VR user interface, tracking a focus level of the user based on the sequence of eye images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Lawton with Leung’s system and method in order to measure a user’s engagement level with the simulation and determine where a user’s eyes are focused.
Leung in view of Lawton may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more actuators of the controller are driven in accordance with a determination that the focus level of the user drops below a predefined focus level. However, Sha teaches a system and method for providing haptic feedback for influencing user engagement with content including virtual reality content wherein the system uses sensor data such as cameras to measure a user’s engagement level and initiate a haptic feedback when the engagement is below a specific threshold (Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0032, 0039, 0052).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung in view of Lawton to incorporate the teachings of Sha by applying the technique of sending haptic feedback of Sha to the system and HMD of Leung, as, while the references are directed to different fields of endeavor, the references and the claimed invention are directed to systems using head worn devices using AR/VR technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would except applying the teachings of Sha to improve Leung in the same way by improving user engagement and focus. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung in view of Lawton by providing tactile/haptic feedback/vibration to the user via the controller when the user’s engagement level as determined by measuring the user’s eye movement/dilation drops below a predetermined threshold. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung in view of Lawton would include wherein the one or more actuators of the controller are driven in accordance with a determination that the focus level of the user drops below a predefined focus level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Sha with Leung in view of Lawton’s system and method in order to improve user engagement and ensure the user is focused on the task/simulation/content (Sha Paragraph 0018).
With regard to claim 9, Leung may not explicitly teach wherein tracking the focus level of the user further comprises: determining a pupil size for each of the sequence of eye images, wherein the focus level is tracked based on the pupil size of each eye image. However, Lawton, as discussed above, teaches a system and method for determining a user’s state including an engagement level of the user wearing an augmented reality device/headset wherein the device includes sensors such as still image cameras or video cameras capturing images of the user including the user’s eyes, receiving a user’s pupil dilation (pupil size), and determining a user’s engagement (focus level) based on the images and data including pupil dilation (Paragraphs 0031, 0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Lawton by including an image or video camera sensor in the headset and applying the technique of determining a user’s engagement level based on the captured sensor data of Lawton to the system and HMD of Leung, as, while the references are directed to different fields of endeavor, the references and the claimed invention are directed to systems using head worn devices using AR/VR technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would except applying the teachings of Lawton to improve Leung in the same way by allowing the system to monitor user focus/engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by including a camera sensor in the HMD and programming the device to track user pupil dilation by capturing video/images of the user’s eyes and determining the user’s engagement level. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include wherein tracking the focus level of the user further comprises: determining a pupil size; wherein the focus level is tracked based on the pupil size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Lawton with Leung’s system and method in order to measure a user’s engagement level with the simulation and determine where a user’s eyes are focused.
Leung in view of Lawton may not explicitly teach determining a pupil size for each of the sequence of eye images, wherein the focus level is tracked based on the pupil size of each eye image. However, Sha further teaches the user engagement level tracked in real-time and based on the analysis of obtained images of the user’s face (Paragraphs 0016, 0023, 0063).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung in view of Lawton to incorporate the teachings of Sha by applying the technique of measuring the user engagement level in real time based on obtained images of the user’s face of Sha to the system and HMD of Leung in view of Lawton, as, while the references are directed to different fields of endeavor, the references and the claimed invention are directed to systems using head worn devices using AR/VR technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would except applying the teachings of Sha to improve Leung in the same way by improving user engagement and focus. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung in view of Lawton by including a camera sensor in the HMD and programming the device to track user pupil dilation by capturing video/images of the user’s eyes and determining the user’s engagement level in real-time thereby analyzing each of the obtained images/video frames, determining a pupil dilation/size for each image, and determining an engagement level based on each image/video frame. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung in view of Lawton would include determining a pupil size for each of the sequence of eye images, wherein the focus level is tracked based on the pupil size of each eye image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Sha with Leung in view of Lawton’s system and method in order to improve user engagement and ensure the user is focused on the task/simulation/content (Sha Paragraph 0018).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung in view of Banerjee et al. (US PGPub 20030044760), hereinafter referred to as Banerjee, and Won et al. (US PGPub 20180315338), hereinafter referred to as Won.
With regard to claim 11, Leung further teaches wherein the driver license issuing requirement includes a predefined duration of time (Paragraphs 0033, 0039 the system can record a duration required to complete a task/simulation wherein the duration is a parameter for the performance of the subject), but fails to teach determining that the traffic scene has been displayed for a predefined duration of time, wherein in accordance with a determination that the moving traffic scene has been displayed for the predefined duration of time, the one or more actuators of the controller are driven to remind the user of the predefined duration of time. However, Banerjee teaches a system and method for monitoring a user/subject taking a test including determining an elapsed amount of time as well as an amount of time remaining for the test and providing alert notifications accordingly (Abstract; Paragraphs 0006, 0008, 0049, 0069) and Won teaches providing tactile signals representing a specific elapsed time since an exercise started wherein the tactile signal is provided by a wearable device (Paragraphs 0004, 0313).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Banerjee and Won by applying the technique of alerting a user of an elapsed time since starting a test/exercise of Banerjee and Won and using a tactile signal as the notification of a specific elapse time of Won to using the tactile vibrations of the system/controller of Leung, as, while the references are directed to different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill in the art would except applying the teachings of Banerjee and Won to improve Leung in the same way by allowing the system to provide time tracking functionality to a user and keep a user on track and aware of elapsed time. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by using the tracked simulation duration and defining a specific elapsed time (predefined duration of time) from the beginning of the simulation to alert a user of the elapsed time by providing a tactile vibration. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include determining that the traffic scene has been displayed for a predefined duration of time, wherein in accordance with a determination that the moving traffic scene has been displayed for the predefined duration of time, the one or more actuators of the controller are driven to remind the user of the predefined duration of time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Lawton with Leung’s system and method in order to measure a user’s engagement level with the simulation and determine where a user’s eyes are focused.
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above, the specification does not specify how the type of the moving traffic scene affects the duration of time, therefore, Leung in view of Banerjee and Won teach further comprising selecting the predefined duration of time based on a type of the moving traffic scene (Leung teaches duration of a simulation as a parameter for performance of each type of simulation (Paragraphs 0033, 0039); further Banerjee teaches a specified amount of time is allotted to complete a given test (Paragraphs 0006) and Won teaches the specific time elapsed is based on the exercise and guidance of the exercise (Paragraphs 0313-0317); any of these teachings teaches the limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung in view of Ohlendorf et al. (US PGPub 20250221617), hereinafter referred to as Ohlendorf, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US PGPub 20110027766), hereinafter referred to as Yoo.
With regard to claim 13, Leung further teaches wherein the one or more visual stimuli include a plurality of visual stimuli (Paragraph 0039 teaches the simulation can include stationary and dynamic objects (plurality of stimuli)), but may not explicitly teach the driver license issuing requirement includes a respective duration of time for each of the plurality of stimuli; and for each of the stimuli, the one or more actuators of the controller are driven, in accordance with a determination that a length of displaying the moving traffic scene has reached the respective duration of time and that no user response to the respective stimulus has been received. However, Ohlendorf teaches a system and method for vision testing wherein the system presents a plurality of visual stimuli and each stimulus differs in a display time wherein the stimulus are displayed on a VR headset (Paragraphs 0116, 0133-0142, 0144, 0347, 0452, 0461, 0463).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung to incorporate the teachings of Ohlendorf by applying the technique of differing the display time for different visual stimuli of Ohlendorf to the virtual objects of Leung, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to VR based vision testing systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung by programming the virtual objects to be displayed for various durations of time. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung would include the driver license issuing requirement includes a respective duration of time for each of the plurality of stimuli. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ohlendorf with Leung’s system and method in order to test various stimuli and further test the user’s vision as the length of display for various stimuli would be a mere design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Leung in view of Ohlendorf may not explicitly teach for each of the stimuli, the one or more actuators of the controller are driven, in accordance with a determination that a length of displaying the moving traffic scene has reached the respective duration of time and that no user response to the respective stimulus has been received. However, Yoo teaches a system and method for a unified vision test including providing tactile feedback including vibration feedback for an incorrect response or failure to respond in a predetermined amount of time (Paragraphs 0116, 0123, 0174, 0224).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leung in view of Ohlendorf to incorporate the teachings of Yoo by applying the technique of providing tactile feedback when a user fails to respond to a visual stimulus of Yoo to the virtual objects of Leung, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to vision testing systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Leung in view of Ohlendorf by programming the system to provide a vibration/tactile feedback via the controller when a user fails to respond/react to a visual stimulus based on the display time of each stimulus. Upon such modification, the method and system of Leung in view of Ohlendorf would include for each of the stimuli, the one or more actuators of the controller are driven, in accordance with a determination that a length of displaying the moving traffic scene has reached the respective duration of time and that no user response to the respective stimulus has been received. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yoo with Leung in view of Ohlendorf’s system and method in order to provide instant feedback to a user and try to improve user performance and focus.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights