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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 10 recites a method of simulating a golf game using a VR simulator. The limitation of providing a VR headset having a display, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “headset” and “display” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “headset” and “display” language, “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking about a golf game. Similarly, the limitations of: capturing, creating, simulating, and transmitting are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 10. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a couple additional elements – “headset” and “display”. The “headset” and “display” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “headset” and “display” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-9 and 11-20.
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)(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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2023/038427 A1 to Aksamit et al. (hereinafter “Aksamit”).
Concerning claim 1, Aksamit discloses a Virtual Reality (VR) simulator system for simulating a golf game (Abstract – VR golf simulator game), said VR simulator system comprising:
a Virtual Reality (VR) headset comprising a display (Fig. 2A, paragraph [0066] – VR headset with display); and
a simulator communicatively connected to said VR headset, wherein said simulator captures the position of a golf club and a golf ball in its field of view (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] – simulator connected to headset captures golf club and ball in its field of view),
wherein said simulator creates a virtual club corresponding to said golf club and a virtual ball corresponding to said golf ball (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] – virtual golf club is simulated),
wherein said simulator simulates a swing of said virtual club and a trajectory of said virtual ball corresponding to the swing of said golf club hitting said golf ball (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] – swing and trajectory of ball is simulated, and
wherein said simulator transmits the simulated swing of said virtual club and the trajectory of said virtual ball to said VR headset for displaying in a VR environment over said display in real-time (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] – display is in real time).
Concerning claims 2 and 11, Aksamit discloses wherein said trajectory of said virtual ball comprises one of ball speed, vertical launch angle, horizontal launch angle, and spin (paragraphs [0066]-[0079], [0093], [0097], [0098] – launch angle/spin of ball is determined).
Concerning claims 3 and 12, Aksamit discloses wherein said VR headset displays the trajectory and a flight of said virtual ball in the VR environment on said display (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] – ball trajectory is displayed).
Concerning claims 4 and 13, Aksamit discloses wherein said simulator comprises an alignment stick placed in front of said simulator for use as a reference for determining the direction of swing of said golf club hitting said golf ball (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079], [0113], [0131] – alignment is determined for direction of swing).
Concerning claims 5 and 14, Aksamit discloses wherein said VR headset comprises an image processing unit for capturing a field of view ahead of a user wearing said VR headset (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] –field of view is captured of user wearing VR headset).
Concerning claims 6 and 15, Aksamit discloses wherein said VR headset utilizes said image processing unit to align with said alignment stick in order to ensure said VR headset and said simulator have consistent three-dimensional (3D) alignment of said virtual club and virtual ball corresponding to said gold club and said golf ball (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079], [0113], [0131] – alignment is determined for direction of swing).
Concerning claims 7 and 16, Aksamit discloses wherein said image processing unit acts as a pass-through camera to provide a real-world view alongside the VR environment on said display (paragraphs [0015], [0140] – cameras can be pass-through).
Concerning claims 8 and 17, Aksamit discloses further comprises a server communicatively connected to said simulator and said VR headset via a network, wherein said server receives a signal from said simulator and transmits to said VR headset. (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] – simulator and headset are connected to a network).
Concerning claims 9 and 18, Aksamit discloses wherein said VR headset is configured to provide a one-to-one visual representation of a golf course in the VR environment on said display (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079] – one-to-one visual representation is displayed).
Concerning claims 10 and 19, see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claim 20, Aksamit discloses further comprising: providing an alignment stick for placement in front of said simulator for use as a reference for determining the direction of swing of said golf club hitting said golf ball; and configuring said VR headset to align with said alignment stick for ensuring said VR headset and said simulator have consistent three-dimensional (3D) alignment of said virtual club and virtual ball corresponding to said gold club and said golf ball (Fig. 2A-2G, paragraphs [0066]-[0079], [0113], [0131] – alignment is determined for direction of swing).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights