DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2024 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0158517 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Tadi.
6. Regarding claim 1, Tadi teaches a method comprising: causing a display, based on a calibration of a sensor (Paragraph 147 teaches calibrating a sensor), to output an avatar of a user within a virtual environment (Paragraph 196 teaches creating an avatar that a user can see in the VR environment or virtual environment. Paragraph 198 teaches the VR environment is viewed through a screen in a headset. The screen in the headset teaches a display and the displayed avatar teaches outputting an avatar of a user within a virtual environment),
wherein the avatar comprises an intact extremity representation of an amputated extremity of the user (Paragraph 199 teaches the user can view a phantom limb that was amputated in real life as still being attached to the user's body in the VR environment. This teaches the avatar has an intact extremity representation of an amputated extremity);
receiving, from the sensor, motion data of user movements, wherein the motion data is associated with one or more motions of at least one intact extremity (Paragraph 198 teaches detecting and receiving sensor data that detects motion data of the user's movements. Paragraph 199 teaches detecting movement of the right arm and replicating it in the left arm in the VR environment. Detecting the right arm movement teaches receiving, from the sensor, motion data of the user's movement associated with the motion of an intact extremity);
and applying the motion data to the avatar, wherein the one or more motions of the at least one intact extremity are applied to the intact extremity representation of the amputated extremity (Paragraph 199 teaches left arm is an amputated limb but is shown as still attached in the VR environment. The movement of the right arm is then replicated in the avatar's left arm. This teaches applying the motion data of the intact extremity to the intact extremity representation of the amputated extremity).
7. Regarding claim 2, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Tadi further teaches the method wherein the display comprises a head mounted display (HMD) (Paragraph 134 teaches the wearable device can be a VR headset. Paragraph 198 teaches the screen is in a headset. This teaches the display comprises a head mounted display).
8. Regarding claim 4, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 2. Tadi further teaches the method wherein the HMD is configured to implement a game rendering engine (Paragraph 198 teaches the user enters a VR environment through a headset or HMD; Paragraph 203-208 teaches the user can play Simon says game through the VR system. Running the game on the HMD teaches the HMD is configured to implement a game rendering engine),
wherein the game rendering engine is configured to output a game to the user independently from a processing device configured to process the motion data received from the sensor (Paragraph 198-199 teaches processing motion data received from a sensor on the headset. Paragraph 203-208 teaches the game outputs a Simon avatar that performs actions that the user must copy as part of the game. This teaches the game is output independently from a processing device configured to process motion data from the sensor).
9. Regarding claim 6, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Tadi further teaches the method wherein the at least one intact extremity comprises at least one intact limb (Paragraph 199 teaches the user has an intact extremity like the right arm),
and wherein the intact extremity representation of the amputated extremity comprises an intact limb representation of an amputated limb (Paragraph 199 teaches the user avatar can consist of the amputated limb like the left limb represented in the avatar as still attached. This teaches the intact extremity representation of the amputated extremity is an intact limb representation of an amputated limb).
10. Regarding claim 7, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Tadi further teaches the method wherein the sensor comprises a camera (Paragraph 71 teaches the sensor comprises a camera).
11. Regarding claim 8, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Tadi further teaches the method wherein the display is further configured to output a game to engage the user to move the at least one intact extremity (Paragraph 198 teaches the VR environment is displayed on the screen of a headset; Paragraph 203-208 teaches VR environment can output a game like Simon Says that engages the user to move the intact extremity by making the user mimic activities or actions).
12. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is the apparatus claim (Paragraph 136 teaches a wearable device with a processor and memory) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
13. Regarding claim 13, the claim is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
14. Regarding claim 15, the claim is similar in scope to claim 4. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 4 applies herein.
15. Regarding claim 17, the claim is similar in scope to claim 6. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 6 applies herein.
16. Regarding claim 18, the claim is similar in scope to claim 7. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 7 applies herein.
17. Regarding claim 19, the claim is similar in scope to claim 8. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 8 applies herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0158517 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Tadi, as applied to claim 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Lemay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0286502 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lemay.
20. Regarding claim 3, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 2. However, Tadi fails to teach the method wherein the HMD comprises a glass configured to one or more of selectively turn off a view of an outside environment in front of the user or selectively turn on a view of an outside environment in front of the user and output an augmented environment.
Lemay teaches the method wherein the HMD comprises a glass configured to one or more of selectively turn off a view of an outside environment in front of the user or selectively turn on a view of an outside environment in front of the user and output an augmented environment (Paragraph 40 teaches "the first display generation component is an inner display of an HMD facing the user's eyes when the HMD is placed on the user's head… the user has the option to see the physical environment or not see the physical environment by switching between displaying the computer-generated environment with different levels of emersions (e.g., switching between complete pass-through mode, mixed reality mode, or virtual reality mode)." This teaches selectively turning off a view of the outside environment in an HMD).
Tadi and Lemay are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of providing a virtual reality experience to a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of applying motion data to an avatar with an intact extremity representation of an amputated extremity taught by Tadi with the turning on and off a view of the outside environment taught by Lemay in order to allow the user to reduce the “barrier between the user and others in the surrounding environment” and reduce “unnecessary hindrances to desired social interactions” without requiring the user to physically take off the headset (Lemay Paragraph 7).
21. Regarding claim 14, the claim is similar in scope to claim 3. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 3 applies herein.
22. Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0158517 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Tadi, as applied to claim 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Zernik et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0101970 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zernik.23. Regarding claim 5, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 4. However, Tadi fails to teach wherein the game rendering engine is further configured to launch a service registry for locating the processing device on a network.
Zernik teaches wherein the game rendering engine is further configured to launch a service registry for locating the processing device on a network (Paragraph 56 teaches a user profile database that can store the user's IP address and other parameters which can identify the device. The user profile database teaches the service registry for locating the processing device on a network).
Tadi and Zernik are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of providing a virtual environment experience to a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of applying motion data to an avatar with an intact extremity representation of an amputated extremity taught by Tadi with the service registry taught by Zernik in order to identify and monitor users and their activity in the virtual environment (Zernik Paragraph 3 and 56).
24. Regarding claim 16, the claim is similar in scope to claim 5. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 5 applies herein.
25. Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0158517 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Tadi, as applied to claim 8 and 19 above, and further in view of Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0259155 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park.
26. Regarding claim 9, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 8. Tadi further teaches the method further comprising receiving user feedback during the game (Paragraph 207 teaches the avatar is required to repeat the action until it can copy the action. Not proceeding until the user successfully mimics the movement teaches a user feedback being received during the game. Paragraph 208 teaches the ability of user to perform action can be scored. The score teaches receiving user feedback during the game),
However, Tadi fails to teach wherein the user feedback is sent to a server that stores the user feedback in a database associated with the user.
Park further teaches the method further comprising receiving user feedback during the game (Paragraph 31-32 teaches receiving user feedback from the game through sensors like their heart rate and assigns a score), wherein the user feedback is sent to a server that stores the user feedback in a database associated with the user (Paragraph 32 teaches storing the score information received by the user in a server. The stored score information of the user can be seen on a web page linked to a server. This teaches the database is associated with the user.).
Tadi and Park are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of providing a virtual reality experience to a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of applying motion data to an avatar with an intact extremity representation of an amputated extremity taught by Tadi with the user feedback being stored in a server taught by Park in order to induce lasting interest in a user and reduce user fatigue (Park Paragraph 6).
27. Regarding claim 20, the claim is similar in scope to claim 9. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 9 applies herein.
28. Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0158517 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Tadi, as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Bleyer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0114797 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bleyer.
29. Regarding claim 10, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Tadi fails to teach the method wherein the calibration of the sensor comprises performing a real- time floor calibration based on receiving calibration data from the sensor, wherein the real-time floor calibration comprises estimating a floor plane of an environment based on the received calibration data.
Bleyer teaches the method wherein the calibration of the sensor comprises performing a real- time floor calibration based on receiving calibration data from the sensor, wherein the real-time floor calibration comprises estimating a floor plane of an environment based on the received calibration data (Paragraph 3 teaches detecting the real-world floor for accurate placement of virtual objects. Identifying the real-world floor teaches estimating a floor plane of the environment. This teaches calibrating the AR or VR device which includes sensors as taught in Paragraphs 38-39; Paragraphs 11-12 teach the floor is detected by evaluating multiple candidate planes obtained from stereo images. This teaches estimating a floor plane based on calibration data; Paragraphs 46-47 teaches a camera setup on the VR device, and using the camera data or stereo images to detect the floor. The camera data and stereo images teach calibration data. This teaches performing real-time floor calibration that estimates a floor plane based on calibration data from the sensor).
Tadi and Bleyer are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of providing a virtual reality experience to a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of applying motion data to an avatar with an intact extremity representation of an amputated extremity taught by Tadi with the real-time floor calibration in order to create “a more accurate and immersive user experience might reduce the likelihood that a user will stumble or fall while interacting with the VR or AR environment” (Bleyer Paragraph 9).
30. Regarding claim 21, the claim is similar in scope to claim 10. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 10 applies herein.
31. Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0158517 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Tadi, as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Osman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0364212 A1), hereinafter referred to as Osman.
32. Regarding claim 11, Tadi teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Tadi fails to teach the method further comprising: determining one or more objects within a radius of the user; and causing the display to output an alert of the one or more objects within the radius of the user.
Osman teaches the method further comprising: determining one or more objects within a radius of the user; and causing the display to output an alert of the one or more objects within the radius of the user (Paragraph 141 teaches detecting an object in the user's proximity. It teaches issuing "a warning sign to the HMD user when the user moves too close to an object in the room. The warning sign may be in audio format, haptic format, visual format, or any combinations thereof". Determining when the user moves too close to an object teaches detecting an object is within a certain radius of the user. The visual format warning teaches causing the display to output an alert of an object within the radius of the user).
Tadi and Osman are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of providing a virtual reality experience to a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of applying motion data to an avatar with an intact extremity representation of an amputated extremity taught by Tadi with the alerting a user of objects within a radius taught by Osman in order to prevent the user from “bumping into the object, from being tangled in a wire/cord of the HMD, from getting hurt, or from causing damage to the object” (Osman Paragraph 141).
33. Regarding claim 22, the claim is similar in scope to claim 11. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 11 applies herein.
Conclusion
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/029694 – cited in IDS) teaches using virtual reality to treat chronic pain in a patient.
- Nakamori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0191502 A1) teaches an obstacle detector for when a user is wearing a head mounted display.
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (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 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights