DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action responsive to the instant application filed 16 September 2024, which is a broadening reissue of application 17/171,710 (US Patent 11,450,073 B1 to Pusch et al., hereinafter “the ‘073 patent”, published 20 September 2022).
The instant application includes pending claims 1-23, of which claims 20-23 are newly presented.
Claims 4, 11, 12, 17, and 19-23 are rejected.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-16, and 18 are allowed.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which US Patent 11,450,073 B1 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 mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
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).
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed 16 September 2024 is objected to. Per MPEP § 1410, “[f]or any reissue filed on or after September 16, 2012, the priority/benefit claim information must be in an application data sheet (ADS) under 37 CFR 1.76 and must be made within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 unless a petition for an unintentionally delayed priority or benefit claim is filed.”
US Application 17/171,710, from which this reissue application originates, is a continuation of US Application 16/292,805 (now US Patent 10,922,890), which is a continuation of US Application 15/496,984 (now US Patent 10,242,501), which claims priority to provisional US Application 62/331,296. Such benefit is not listed on the 16 September 2024 ADS.
Appropriate correction to the ADS is required consistent with MPEP § 601.05(a)(II) and 37 CFR 1.76(c).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Dependent claim 2 recites:
The computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the heart rate data comprises a heartbeat rate.
Claim 1, allowed herein, recites “receiving…heart rate data from a heart rate sensor”. It is apparent that the heart rate data of claim 1 includes some form of measurement of a heartbeat rate. Indeed, the specification of the ‘073 Patent discloses monitoring “heart data of a participant collected using a heart sensor”, at col. 24, line 13 through col. 29, line 12. At col. 28, lines 60-61 the specification discusses “heart rate” as a function of “beats per minute”, and throughout the cited portion only appears to refer to “heart rate” in the context of a measured heartbeat rate (see, for example, col. 24, line 23, “the increased heart rate was detected”). Furthermore, the specification at col. 25, lines 4-10 discusses monitoring types of “heart activity” including “a simple heart beat rate, blood pressure, [and] electrical activity of the heart”, thus disclosing that “heart beat rate” is a subset of “heart activity”, and “heart rate” does not include further types of measurements outside of the heartbeat rate.
As a result, both claim 1 and claim 2 “are so close in content that they cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording”, and subsequently claim 2 is objected to.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following: claim 21 recites, in part, “The computer-implemented method of Claim 21”. The Examiner believes such to be a typographical error, and for the purposes of examination will interpret claim 21 as depending from independent claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11, 17, and 20-23 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 11 recites:
The computer-implemented method of Claim 6, the method further comprising ascertaining an emotional state of the second user from the heart rate data.
The Examiner contends that “an emotional state” is a subjective term, as an emotional state is, in essence, a “personal feeling”. As such, the claim or specification must supply some objective standard for measuring the scope of the term (see MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV)). The claim generally asserts that an emotional state may be ascertained “from the heart rate data”, and as such fails to define any objective standard.
The specification discloses throughout the inference of a user’s emotional state, but fails to disclose in any uncertain terms how any such state is ascertained from heart rate data. For example, at col. 24, lines 16-20, the specification states that “tracked heart data…may be used by itself or in combination with other monitored factors (e.g., facial expressions) to determine aspects of the participant including, for example, the emotional state of the participant.” The specification at col. 24, lines 20-24 states that “a detected and/or determined increased heart rate may indicate anxiety, apprehension, excitement, etc. of a participant”. The specification at col. 26, lines 20-26 states that “the display dashboard/window size…may be automatically increased at least partly in response to a certain type of heart rate activity pattern which may indicate, for example, a certain emotional state.” At col. 27, lines 20-27, the specification discloses that “a small red indicator may be presented…to a user in response to the computing system determining that the subject’s…heart activity is above a certain range of indicates a certain emotional state, for example, anger or excitement.”
None of these cited passages, nor any other portion of the specification, provides an objective standard by which heart rate data can be used to ascertain an emotional state of a user. At best, the specification provides a general assertion that irregular heart activity may indicate a certain emotional state, but the objective methodology (i.e., a heart rate above a certain threshold or in a certain range definitively indicating a particular emotional state) is not disclosed.
As such, claim 11 is rendered indefinite for the use a subjective term without providing “some objective standard for measuring the scope of the term”. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations, replacing “heart rate data” with “blood pressure data”. Similar to claim 11, no objective standard for ascertaining an emotional state based on blood pressure data is provided in the claim or specification. As a result, such language renders claim 17 indefinite.
Independent claim 20 recites the terms "the first user" and “the second user” in lines 11 and 12 of the claim, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim. The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a “first user” and a “second user”, and as a result it is unclear as to what elements the limitation references. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claims 21-23 depend from claim 20, and fail to cure the deficiencies set forth above. As a result, claims 21-23 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 22 recites:
The computer-implemented method of Claim 21, wherein the first physical space and the second physical space are in the same room.
Claim 21 recites, in part, “wherein the first physical space is geographically separate from the second physical space”. It is unclear from the claims and specification how a first physical space and second physical space can be both “in the same room” and “geographically separate”. For example, the specification at col. 19, line 67 through col. 20, line 3 discloses that “[g]enerally, users are on separate computing platforms connected by a Local-Area-Network or in some cases a Wide-Area-Network (e.g., if the VR participants are geographically separated)”. Users residing in the same room would typically be connected by a Local-Area-Network and as such would not be considered, as by the specification, to be “geographically separated”. Subsequently, the claim is rendered indefinite as it conflictingly requires that the first and second physical spaces be both “geographically separate” and “in the same room”.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites, in part:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second user comprises a plurality of users
Claim 1 recites a “second motion tracking camera configured to detect infrared light providing position data corresponding to a position of a second user in the second physical space” (emphasis added). The limitation discloses the singular “second user” as opposed to the plural “second users”, and would be readily understood to limit the claim to a single second user. The specification likewise does not disclose that the term “second user” may include a plurality of users. On the contrary, the specification at col. 73, lines 21-22 enumerates “the first user 5150, the second user 5155, or a third user”. Claim 4 therefore improperly expands the previously understood singular “second user” to a plurality of users, and subsequently fails to further limit the subject matter upon which it depends.
Claims 12 and 19 recite limitations similar to those of claim 4, and depend from independent claims that similarly define a “second user” as a single user, and as such are similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
The instant application is a reissue of the ‘073 patent, resulting from prosecution of US Application 17/171,710 (the ‘710 Application). The ‘710 Application was filed as part of a chain of continuing applications, including US 16/292,805, now US Patent 10,922,890, and US 15/496,984, now US Patent 10,242,501. The Notice of Allowability in US 16/292,805 mailed 13 October 2020 noted at 2-4 that the prior art of record failed to disclose, at least, “access configuration information comprising indicating what types of operations are locally privileged and what types of operations are non-privileged; based at least in part on the accessed configuration information comprising the information indicating what types of operations are locally privileged and what types of operations are non-privileged, case at least one computer operation to be performed locally and at least one computer operation to be performed non-locally”. Instant independent claims 1, 6, 14, and 20 disclose limitations analogous in scope to those recited above. A prior art search failed to provide results relevant to such limitations.
For example, Osterhout (US Publication 2012/0212406) is directed towards artificial intelligence glasses that allow a user to display information relating to the location of further users, and information such as detected heart rates of such users (see, for example, [0423]). However, Osterhout fails to disclose the concept of privileged and non-privileged operation types in such systems, as claimed.
Similarly, Flaks (US Publication 2012/0092328) discloses systems and methods directed towards virtual reality/augmented reality but does not disclose the concept of privileged and non-privileged operation types in such systems, as claimed.
As a result, independent claims 1, 6, and 14 are allowed. Independent claim 20 would be allowed if the rejections disclosed supra were obviated. Claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-19, and 21-23 recite similarly allowable subject matter based on their dependence from independent claims 1, 6, 14, and 20. Rejected claims 2, 4, 11, 12, 17, and 19-23 would be allowed were the rejections disclosed supra obviated.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-16, and 18 are allowed.
Conclusion
Claims 4, 11, 12, 17, and 19-23 are rejected.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-16, and 18 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-4055. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI can be reached on (571) 272-3744. 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 ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights