DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s amendment filed 3/13/2026, claims 1-4 and 8-10 are pending in this application.
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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunschweiler et al. (US 11,445,332) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2023/0206781) and Fast et al. (US 2003/0091970) and Lopez et al. (US 11,449,664) and also Rosenberg et al. (US 2007/0190494).
Regarding claims 1-2, Braunschweiler discloses a system for generation of an interactive AR scenario. See col. 2: 11-29. Braunschweiler discloses wherein the system defines a template (col. 6: 37-44), and this template is a production module which defines a venue (col. 6:10-34), and corresponding characters and scenarios and missions and events (col. 12: 15-28). Braunschweiler defines wherein the template is populated with location-based effects (LBC) which can be graphics, characters, effects, etc. See col.2:59 – col. 3:13. Braunscheiler discloses wherein the user wears an XR training device and is represented as an avatar. See col. 3: 5-10.
Braunschweiler also does not explicitly disclose a 3D map for the generation of effects in the predefined space (i.e. the venue). However, this interface method is established, as is disclosed by the AR system of Robinson in paragraphs 0238-0239, 0286, and 0317-0318. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider these concepts with the Braunschweiler system, in order to provide a convenient control interface.
Braunschweiler does not explicitly disclose pre-processing for standardization of items from an external database including format and size conversion, and the assignment of attribute data. However, these concepts are established, as is disclosed by the content system of Lopez in col. 4:65 – col. 5: 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider these features with the Braunschweiler system, in order to provide various effects.
Braunschweiler discloses a mission authoring module in col. 14: 42-44. However, it is not disclosed wherein the mission depends upon the user achieving a state condition, a time condition, and an action condition. However, these mission factors are all well-established, as is disclosed for example by the training system of Fast in paragraphs 0039 and 0066. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such factors with the system of Braunschweiler, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Braunschweiler does not disclose wherein the template is customized and stored separately for each user based upon performance, and wherein the template is further modified by collision range adjustment. However, these are established concepts with regard to gaming systems, as is disclosed by the gaming system of Rosenberg in paragraphs 0080 and 0084. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Braunschweiler system, in order to provide various customized scenarios.
Regarding claims 3-4, Braunschweiler discloses an object template with effect information in col. 14: 16-17 (LBC effect database).
Regarding claim 9, Braunschweiler discloses an occurrence for an event to occur, and end conditions. See col. 11: 18-25 and col. 6: 21-24.
Regarding claim 10, Braunschweiler discloses wherein the training device is wearable and applies user input to the map scenario. See col. 5: 23-35.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunschweiler et al. (US 11,445,332) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2023/0206781) and Fast et al. (US 2003/0091970) and Lopez et al. (US 11,449,664) and Rosenberg et al. (US 2007/0190494) and also Von Kohorn (US 5,697,844).
Regarding claim 8, Braunschweiler discloses state and character conditions in col. 14: 42-54, but does not explicitly disclose time-limitations. However, this is established with regard to VR systems, as is disclosed by the gaming system of Von Kohorn in col. 19: 20-25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Braunschweiler system, in order to provide various scenarios.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 3/13/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights