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)(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.
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vancamberg et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,976,806), referred herein as Vancamberg.
Regarding claim 12, Vancamberg teaches a method of reducing anxiety in a person during a blood collection process, the method comprising: providing a mixed reality headset to a person prior to collecting blood from the person, the mixed reality headset including glasses and a display device to display digital content on the glasses, the glasses to enable a medical professional to monitor eyes of the person during the blood collection process; initiating a mixed reality program on the mixed reality headset, the mixed reality program to reduce anxiety by: causing the display device to display a mixed reality environment with one or more virtual objects on the glasses such that the virtual objects appear to be located in a real-world environment of the person (column 2, lines 13-17 and 29-51; column 3, lines 31-47 and 55-59; column 7, lines 20-41; column 8, lines 37-42 and 51-59; column 9, lines 24-32; a person wears a mixed reality headset with a partially transparent display, to view digital content and virtual objects within a real-world environment during a blood collection process in order to distract the person and reduce anxiety);
determining a gaze direction of the eyes of the person; and causing a change in one or more of the virtual objects in the mixed reality environment based on the gaze direction of the eyes of the person to enable the person to control the one or more of the virtual objects (column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-35; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; column 13, lines 30-40; column 14, lines 35-49; a gaze direction of the person is determined, which causes a change in one or more of the virtual objects, and the person is enabled to control the one or more virtual objects); and
collecting blood from the person while the person is exposed to the mixed reality program (column 2, lines 13-17 and 29-51; column 14, lines 35-49; the person is exposed to the mixed reality environment during a blood collection procedure).
Regarding claim 13, Vancamberg teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the mixed reality program is to reduce anxiety by further: detecting, via a sensor on the headset, objects and surfaces in the real-world environment; creating a three-dimensional (3D) model of the real-world environment (column 2, lines 39-51; column 3, lines 31-47 and 55-59; column 7, lines 20-35);
determining a direction of orientation of the headset in the real-world environment; and causing the display device to display the virtual objects on the glasses based on the 3D model and the direction of orientation of the headset such that the virtual objects appear fixed relative to one or more of the objects or surfaces in the real-world environment (column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-35; column 10, lines 6-22; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; column 13, lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 14, Vancamberg teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the virtual objects include a first virtual object displayed on a first portion of the glasses to appear on a surface in the real-world environment (column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-51; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, lines 9-15; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; column 13, lines 30-40; column 19, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 18, Vancamberg teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the mixed reality program is to reduce anxiety by further causing the display device to present a virtual avatar on the glasses, the virtual avatar to provide instructions to the person for interacting with the mixed reality environment (column 2, lines 13-17 and 29-51; column 7, lines 20-41; column 8, lines 37-42 and 51-59; column 9, lines 24-32; column 10, lines 28-34; column 13, lines 5-24; column 18, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 19, Vancamberg teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the mixed reality program is to reduce anxiety by further activating a speaker on the mixed reality headset to provide audio instructions to the person (column 10, lines 28-34; column 13, lines 5-24; column 18, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 20, Vancamberg teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the person does not interact with the mixed reality environment via a hand-held device (column 8, lines 37-42; column 9, lines 33-41; column 10, lines 28-31; the system comprises MR glasses with cameras to optically capture head and hand gestures with no hand-held device).
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 1-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vancamberg, in view of Pastrana Vicente et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0100270), referred herein as Pastrana.
Regarding claim 1, Vancamberg teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause programmable circuitry to (column 6, lines 25-27):
present a virtual avatar on a display of a headset worn by a patient during a blood collection process, the display being at least partially transparent to enable the patient to view real-world surroundings through the display and such that the virtual avatar appears within the real-world surroundings, the display being at least partially transparent to enable a medical professional to monitor an eye of the patient during the blood collection process, and the virtual avatar to distract the patient and reduce anxiety in the patient (column 2, lines 13-17 and 29-51; column 7, lines 20-41; column 8, lines 37-42 and 51-59; column 9, lines 24-32; a patient wears a headset with a partially transparent display, to view an avatar within real-world surroundings during a blood collection process in order to distract the patient and reduce anxiety);
detect objects and surfaces in the real-world surroundings; create a three-dimensional (3D) model of the real-world surroundings; present a first digital image on the display, a position of the first digital image based on the 3D model such that the first digital image appears on one or more of the objects or surfaces in the real-world surroundings (column 2, lines 39-51; column 3, lines 31-47 and 55-59; column 7, lines 20-35; objects and surfaces in the real-world surroundings are detected, and a digital image appears on one or more of the objects or surfaces at a position based on a 3D model of the surroundings);
determine a focal point of the patient based on a gaze direction of the eye of the patient; determine that the patient holds the focal point; and in response to the focal point and gaze direction, present a second digital image on the display in place of the first digital image, the position of the second digital image on the display based on the 3D model such that the second digital image appears on one or more of the objects or surfaces in the real-world surroundings (column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-35; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; column 13, lines 30-40; a focal point of the patient is determined based on the patient’s gaze direction, and in response, a second image is displayed in place of the first image, where the position of the second image is based on the 3D model).
Vancamberg does not explicitly teach that the circuitry is programmed to determine an amount of time the person holds the focal point, compare the amount of time to a threshold period of time, and in response to the amount of time satisfying the threshold, present the second image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pastrana teaches a system programmed to present virtual objects and avatars on a display of a headset worn by a person, the display being partially transparent to enable the person to view real-world surroundings and virtual objects positioned within the surroundings, and to present a first digital image on the display that appears on one or more objects or surfaces in the real-world surroundings, and determine a focal point of the person based on a gaze direction of the person (paragraph 36; paragraphs 77 and 83; paragraph 92, lines 1-20), and further programmed to determine an amount of time the person holds the focal point, compare the amount of time to a threshold period of time, and in response to the amount of time satisfying the threshold, present a second image in place of the first digital image (paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; paragraph 124, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the focal point time threshold of Pastrana with the focal point determination of Vancamberg, because this provides an efficient way for the user to transition between desired virtual objects/images in less time or with fewer inputs, which simplifies the interaction between the user and the display device and enhances its usability, which in turn reduces user error and processing resources (see, for example, Pastrana, paragraph 125).
Regarding claim 2, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the programmable circuitry to present the virtual avatar on a first portion of the display and present the first digital image on a second portion of the display, the second portion different than the first portion (Vancamberg, column 2, lines 31-51; column 7, lines 44-53; column 18, lines 37-46 and 55-67; column 19, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 3, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the programmable circuitry to animate a transformation of the first digital image to the second digital image (Pastrana, paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the programmable circuitry to: identify flatness of the objects and surfaces in the 3D model; and identify the position of the second digital image based on the flatness (Vancamberg, column 7, lines 20-41; column 12, lines 9-15; column 19, lines 1-17; Pastrana, paragraph 71, lines 1-11; paragraph 78, the last 6 lines; paragraph 83, lines 1-19; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed, cause the programmable circuitry to: present an animation of a moving object on the display and appearing in the real-world surroundings; and prompt the patient to follow the moving object with eye gaze (Vancamberg, column 7, lines 20-41 and 44-53; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; Pastrana, paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the programmable circuitry to: track eye gaze of the patient; assess an activity level of the patient based on the eye gaze; and automatically present a sequence of additional digital images on the display when the activity level does not satisfy a threshold level of activity, the threshold level of activity based on time (Vancamberg, column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-35; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 40; Pastrana, paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; paragraph 124, lines 1-12; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to present the virtual avatar in different positions on the display such that the virtual avatar appears to move around the real-world surroundings to train the patient with eye gaze control (Vancamberg, column 2, lines 13-17 and 29-51; column 7, lines 20-41; column 8, lines 37-42 and 51-59; column 9, lines 24-32; Pastrana, paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; paragraph 124, lines 1-12; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to present audio instructions via a speaker (Vancamberg, column 10, lines 28-34; column 13, lines 5-24; column 18, lines 56-67; Pastrana, paragraph 31, lines 1-13; paragraph 34, the last 11 lines; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Vancamberg teaches a mixed reality headset to be used during a blood collection process, the mixed reality headset comprising: a display device to be placed around a head of a person; a visor carried by the display device, the visor to be disposed over eyes of the person wearing the display device, the visor being at least partially transparent to enable the person to see real-world surroundings and to enable a medical professional to monitor the eyes of the person; a display device to display digital content on the visor (column 2, lines 13-17 and 29-51; column 7, lines 20-41; column 8, lines 37-59; column 9, lines 24-32; a person wears a headset with a partially transparent display visor, to enable the patient to view real-world surroundings and digital content during a blood collection process);
memory; and programmable circuitry to execute instructions to (column 6, lines 25-27):
track objects and surfaces in the real-world surroundings; create a three-dimensional (3D) model of the real-world surroundings; cause the display device to present a first virtual object on the visor such that the first virtual object appears in the real-world surroundings (column 2, lines 39-51; column 3, lines 31-47 and 55-59; column 7, lines 20-35; objects and surfaces in the real-world surroundings are tracked, and a digital image appears based on a 3D model of the surroundings);
track a focal point of the person; determine that the person holds the focal point; and in response to the focal point, cause the display device to present a transformation of the first virtual object on the visor (column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-35; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; column 13, lines 30-40; a focal point of the person is determined, and in response, a transformation of the first image is displayed).
Vancamberg teaches that the headset is non-limiting and may comprise any known type of VR headset (column 8, lines 37-50), but does not explicitly teach that the headset comprises a headband, or that the headset is programmed to determine an amount of time the person holds the focal point, compare the amount of time to a threshold period of time, and in response to the amount of time satisfying the threshold, present the transformation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pastrana teaches a headset programmed to present virtual objects and avatars on a display of a headset worn by a person, the display being partially transparent to enable the person to view real-world surroundings and virtual objects positioned within the surroundings, and to present a first digital image on the display that appears on one or more objects or surfaces in the real-world surroundings, and determine a focal point of the person based on a gaze direction of the person (paragraph 36; paragraphs 77 and 83; paragraph 92, lines 1-20), wherein the headset comprises a headband placed around the head of the person and carrying a visor comprising the transparent display (paragraphs 77 and 78), and wherein the headset is further programmed to determine an amount of time the person holds the focal point, compare the amount of time to a threshold period of time, and in response to the amount of time satisfying the threshold, present a transformation from the first image to a second image (paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; paragraph 124, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the focal point time threshold of Pastrana with the focal point determination of Vancamberg, because this provides an efficient way for the user to transition between desired virtual objects/images in less time or with fewer inputs, which simplifies the interaction between the user and the display device and enhances its usability, which in turn reduces user error and processing resources (see, for example, Pastrana, paragraph 125).
Regarding claim 10, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the mixed reality headset of claim 9, wherein the programmable circuitry is to cause the display device to present an avatar on the visor, the avatar to distract the person and reduce anxiety in the person (Vancamberg, column 2, lines 13-17 and 29-51; column 7, lines 20-41; column 8, lines 37-42 and 51-59; column 9, lines 24-32).
Regarding claim 11, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the mixed reality headset of claim 10, further including a speaker, the programmable circuitry to cause the speaker to provide audible instructions coordinated with the avatar (Vancamberg, column 2, lines 35-51; column 10, lines 28-34; column 13, lines 5-24; column 18, lines 56-67; column 19, lines 8-22; Pastrana, paragraph 31, lines 1-13; paragraph 34, the last 11 lines; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 15, Vancamberg teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the mixed reality program is to reduce anxiety by further: determining that the person holds the gaze direction on a portion of the glasses containing the first virtual object (column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-35; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; column 13, lines 30-40).
Vancamberg does not explicitly teach determining an amount of time the person holds the gaze direction and comparing the amount of time to a threshold period of time.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pastrana teaches a method comprising presenting virtual objects and avatars on a display of a headset worn by a person, the display being partially transparent to enable the person to view real-world surroundings and virtual objects positioned within the surroundings, and presenting a first digital image on the display that appears on one or more objects or surfaces in the real-world surroundings, and determining a focal point of the person based on a gaze direction of the person (paragraph 36; paragraphs 77 and 83; paragraph 92, lines 1-20), wherein the method further comprises determining an amount of time the person holds the gaze direction and comparing the amount of time to a threshold period of time (paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; paragraph 124, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the focal point time threshold of Pastrana with the focal point determination of Vancamberg, because this provides an efficient way for the user to transition between desired virtual objects/images in less time or with fewer inputs, which simplifies the interaction between the user and the display device and enhances its usability, which in turn reduces user error and processing resources (see, for example, Pastrana, paragraph 125).
Regarding claim 16, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the mixed reality program is to reduce anxiety by further, in response to the amount of time satisfying the threshold, causing the display to present a second virtual object image on the glasses in place of the first virtual object (Vancamberg, column 2, lines 39-51; column 7, lines 20-35; column 9, lines 24-32; column 12, line 57 through column 13, line 9; column 13, lines 30-40; Pastrana, paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; paragraph 124, lines 1-12; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, Vancamberg in view of Pastrana teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the mixed reality program is to reduce anxiety by further, in response to the amount of time satisfying the threshold, causing an animation of the first virtual object into a second virtual object (Pastrana, paragraph 106, lines 1-16; paragraph 112; paragraph 123, lines 1-17; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 15).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0233485); Virtual reality apparatus.
Dascola (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0106627); Devices, methods, and graphical user interfaces for interacting with three-dimensional environments.
Dryer (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0220009); Gazed based interactions with three-dimensional environments.
Gold (Is Virtual Reality Ready for Prime Time in the Medical Space? A Randomized Control Trial of Pediatric Virtual Reality for Acute Procedural Pain Management); Journal of Pediatric Psychology; 2018.
Gerceker (Effects of virtual reality on pain, fear and anxiety during blood draw in children aged 5-12 years old: A randomised controlled study); Journal of Clinical Nursing; 2020.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
