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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 23-28, 30-35, 37-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pardeshi et al (US Pub. 2021/0086089 A1 in IDS).
Regarding Claim 23, Pardeshi et al teaches a method, comprising: receiving profile data of a user (Paragraph 0058-0060) and eye strain data associated with a user interaction with a first virtual environment (Fig. 12; Paragraph 0097); computing one or more eye strain metrics based on the eye strain data to determine a level of eye strain of the user while interacting with the first virtual environment (see Pardeshi et al teaches " in one embodiment, video data can be analyzed to attempt to determine metadata useful for determining fatigue, such as may demonstrate eye strain, changes in eye movements, changes in blinking patterns. In at least one embodiment, data about accuracy or decreased skill may also be indicative of fatigue. In at least one embodiment, a neural network might infer that a user has reached a fatigue threshold or determination. In at least one embodiment, a skill improvement suggestion might be provided to this player, such as to take a break or maybe perform a different task for a period of time. In at least one embodiment, a suggestion may also be displayed that may provide a tip for overcoming fatigue." (Fig. 12; Paragraph 0095-0098);
providing at least one of the one or more eye strain metrics (Fig. 12; Paragraph 0097) or profile data to a machine learning model to train the machine learning model (Fig. 12-14; Paragraph 0095-0098) to identify a corrective action for adjusting one or more rendering attributes associated with the level of eye strain (Paragraph 0059, 0096-0098, 0110-0116);
adjusting the one or more rendering attributes based on one of a user preference or a user sensitivity, wherein the one of the user preference or the user sensitivity is based on the profile data; adjusting the first virtual environment based on the corrective action; and saving the corrective action to the profile data (Fig. 11-12; Paragraph 0059, 0096-0098, 0110-0116, 0235, 0263).
Regarding Claims 24, 31, 38, Pardeshi et al teaches the method further comprising: rendering a second virtual environment based on the corrective action saved in the profile data (Paragraph 0051-0054, 0058-0060).
Regarding Claims 25, 32, 39, Pardeshi et al teaches the method wherein a baseline level of eye strain is determined by capturing at least one of blink rate, pupil size, redness, or squinting intensity of a user eye under non-interactive conditions (Paragraph 0058-0060).
Regarding Claims 26, 33, 40, Pardeshi et al teaches the method wherein the eye strain data includes direct eye strain indicators and indirect eye strain indicators, wherein the direct eye strain indicators are determined from images captured by one or more sensors and the indirect eye strain indicators are derived from the direct eye strain indicators (Paragraph 0095-0098).
Regarding Claims 27, 34, 41, Pardeshi et al teaches the method wherein adjusting the one or more rendering attributes based on the profile data includes adjusting at least one of brightness, contrast, frame rate, resolution, or foveated rendering parameters, in accordance with the user preference or the user sensitivity (Paragraph 0096-0098, 0110-0116).
Regarding Claims 28, 35, 42, Pardeshi et al teaches the method further comprising: assigning, to each of a plurality of eye features, a respective weight indicative of a degree to which changes in a respective eye feature contribute to the level of eye strain, wherein assigned weights are utilized by the machine learning model to compute the one or more eye strain metrics (Paragraph 0095-0098).
Regarding Claim 30, the apparatus Claim 30 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 37, the CRM Claim 37 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0418).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 36, 43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fail to teach the method further comprising: predicting a second virtual environment to be rendered subsequent to the first virtual environment, wherein the prediction is based on state data associated with the first virtual environment; identifying one or more rendering attributes in the second virtual environment; predicting, based on the eye strain data associated with the first virtual environment and the one or more rendering attributes identified in the second virtual environment, a second level of eye strain of a user interaction with the second virtual environment; updating the one or more eye strain metrics for the user based on the second level of eye strain; and generating a new corrective action to adjust one or more rendering attributes of the second virtual environment prior to rendering for reducing the second level of eye strain as claimed in Claims 29, 36, 43.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Justice et al (US 20170274284 A1) teaches a rendered video game image is received from a game server and combined with a rendered image generated by the game client to form a single video game image that is presented to a user. Control input is received by a client device and then communicated to a game server, potentially with some preprocessing, and is also consumed locally on the client, at least in part. An embodiment of the present invention processes and renders some or all of a character's interactions with game objects on the client device associated with the character. A character is associated with a client device when control input associated with the character is received from a user of the client device.
Sangston (US 20240302902 A1) teaches a Methods and system for providing assistance to a user during user's interaction with content includes tracking eye gestures of the user as the user is interacting with the content attributes associated with the eye gestures and to identify a first area within the content that the user is focusing on. An event that is predicted to occur requiring the attention of the user is detected in a second area. A visual cue is provided to assist the user by drawing their attention to the second area where the predicted event is about to occur within the content viewed by the user.
Conclusion
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights