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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-8, 13-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Haseltine (US PG pub 2015/0209664).
Haseltine shows,
In regards to claims 1, 22, 23, and 25,
A virtual display arrangement comprising a display device, a communication interface and a controller, wherein
the communication interface is configured to connect with a first remote-controlled vehicle (Mater car 1620), the controller is configured to receive user input and to control the first remote-controlled vehicle based on the user input along a track, (figures 16 and 17) and
the display device (camera/projection unit 1650) is configured to show the first remote-controlled vehicle being navigated based on the user input along the track, wherein
the communication interface is further configured to connect with a second virtual display arrangement controlling a second remote-controlled vehicle along a second track, (see paragraph [0150]) and
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive information relating to navigation of the second remote-controlled vehicle (car 1720) along the second track (track 1730),
display a graphical representation of the second remote-controlled vehicle in the display device at a position relative the first remote-controlled vehicle on the track corresponding to a position of the second remote-controlled vehicle on the second track. (figure 17)
In regards to claim 2,
wherein the track is determined based on a first recorded real-world track in an area where the first remote-controlled vehicle is navigated and wherein the controller is configured to manipulate the navigation of the first remote-controlled vehicle along the first recorded real-world track according to alignment information determined based on the first recorded real-world track and a second recorded real-world track in an area where the second remote-controlled vehicle is navigated. (figure 17, see the image of two real-world tracks being displayed to each other.)
In regards to claim 3,
wherein alignment information relates to adapting the navigation of the first remote-controlled vehicle so as to enable the first remote-controlled vehicle to navigate the first recorded real-world track as if navigating a same common track as the second remote-controlled vehicle, and is determined based on an alignment of the first and second recorded real-world tracks. (figure 17, see the image of two real-world tracks being displayed to each other.)
In regards to claim 4,
wherein alignment information is determined by
identifying differentiating portions between the first real-world track and the second real-world track, the differentiating portions comprising differences,
determine adaptations to enable the first and/or the second remote-controlled vehicles to be navigated through the differentiating portions and thereby cancelling out the differences. (paragraph [0154], “For instance, the projection unit 1650 could alter the perspective from which the virtual world 1860 is viewed from, once the physical car 1620 enters the tunnel unit 1640. An example of this is shown in FIG. 19.” The altered perspective is considered to be the cancelled differences.)
In regards to claim 5,
wherein identifying the differentiating portions by determining that the second recorded real-world track is more irregular than the first real world track and in response thereto providing adaptations for the first remote-controlled vehicle for navigating the first recorded real world track based on the second recorded real world track. (figure 18)
In regards to claim 6,
wherein identifying the differentiating portions by determining that a first portion in the second recorded real-world track is more irregular than a corresponding second portion of the first real world track and in response thereto providing adaptations for the first remote-controlled vehicle for navigating the second portion based on the first portion. (figure 17, see the more extensive loops or more irregular.)
In regards to claim 7,
wherein irregularity is determined based on length. (figure 17, longer straight away out of the tunnel on Jill’s side.)
In regards to claim 8,
wherein irregularity is determined based on sum of curvatures. (figure 17, as cited above, there are more extensive loops on Jill’s side.)
In regards to claim 13,
processing is performed by the controller of the virtual display arrangement and wherein the communication interface is configured to receive information representing the second recorded real world track. (paragraph [0144])
In regards to claim 14,
processing is performed by the second virtual display arrangement and wherein the communication interface is configured to transmit information representing the first recorded real world track to the second virtual display arrangement and to receive the alignment information from the second virtual display arrangement. (paragraph [0144] followed by figure 17)
In regards to claim 15,
processing is performed by a server and wherein the communication interface is configured to transmit information representing the first recorded real world track to the server and to receive the alignment information from the server. (The copy of the remote user set up is aligned as it is in the second real world track.)
In regards to claim 16,
the display device is configured to show the first remote-controlled vehicle being navigated based on the user input along the track by receiving at least one image of the first remote-controlled vehicle being navigated based on the user input along the track and displaying said at least one image on the display device. (paragraph [0144])
In regards to claims 17-19,
wherein the virtual display arrangement is a smartphone or a tablet computer.
wherein the virtual display arrangement is a head-mounted display device.
wherein the virtual display arrangement is an optical see-through device.
(paragraph [0150], “For instance, assume that Jill 1710 is wearing a pair of augmented reality glasses. As another example, Jill could view the augmented reality car in her room using another augmented reality device, such as a phone with a camera (e.g., an iPhone or similar Android phone), or a tablet with a camera (e.g., an iPad).”)
In regards to claim 20,
wherein the first remote controlled vehicle is a remote controlled car or a drone. (Mater car 1620)
In regards to claim 21,
comprising a virtual display arrangement according to claim 1 and a server. (paragraph [0172])
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haseltine (US PG pub 2015/0209664) in view of Cherednichenko et al. (US patent 9,707,490)
Haseltine shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying tracks selected out of one or more second recorded real-world tracks based on identifying differentiating portions.
Cherednichenko et al. teaches, column 1, lines 13-20, “Toy vehicle playsets and track sets are popular among children of varied ages, and a variety of track configurations have previously been provided that include various features to add to the excitement a child experiences while playing with the toy. For instance, toy vehicle playsets and track sets have been provided having portions of the track that are moveable and that may change position with respect to other portions of the track during play.”
Based on the teaching of Cherednichenko et al., 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 Haseltine system to incorporate the option for tracks to be selected out of one or more second recorded real-world tracks based on identifying differentiating portions in order to add to the excitement a child experiences while playing with the toy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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: Given the specific claimed invention, the prior art does not show or teaches scaling or rotating the alignment information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights