DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, the limitation “based at least in part on the detecting the overlap” should be “based at least in part on the detecting of the overlap”.
As per claims 7 and 17, the limitation “wherein the generating the configured first XR safe area” should be “wherein the generating of the configured first XR safe area”.
As per claim 11, the limitation “generate by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the detecting the overlap” should be “generate by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the detecting of the overlap”.
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 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 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.
Claims 7 and 17 recites the limitation "the size of the configured second XR safe area", “the average activity level generated by a second application“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden (US 20230196681) in view of Stafford (US 20170203213).
As per claim 1, Madden discloses a method (Abstract) comprising:
detecting, by control circuitry (Fig. 5, #520), an overlap in a physical space of a first extended reality (XR) safe area (#502) and a second extended reality (XR) safe area (#501; [0152]-[0153]; [0158]), wherein the first XR safe area (#502) is associated with a first extended reality (XR) device (#541; [0153]);
based at least in part on the detecting the overlap, generating, by the control circuitry, a configured first extended reality (XR) safe area (#503), wherein the configured first XR safe area (#503) includes no overlap in the physical space with the second XR safe area (#501; [0171]-[0174]);
determining, by the control circuitry, that a second extended reality (XR) device is approaching a boundary of the configured first XR safe area (i.e., the first player's reserved space) or has crossed the boundary of the configured first XR safe area (i.e., the first player's reserved space; [0175]-[0176]); and
based at least in part on the determining, generating an indication of a warning to the second device ([0095]; [0113]).
However, Madden does not explicitly teach based at least in part on the determining, generating an indication of a warning to the second XR device.
Stafford teaches based at least in part on the determining, generating an indication of a warning to the second XR device ([0070]; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second XR device of Madden include the warning disclosed by Stafford so as to provide a textual warning that is rendered at the display portion of the second XR device.
As per claims 2 and 12, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the generating, by the control circuitry, the configured first XR safe area comprises determining a combined safe area based on the first XR safe area and the second XR safe area (Stafford: [0070]; [0073]).
As per claims 3 and 13, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the indication of the warning comprises causing activation of a passthrough display mode for the second XR device (Stafford: [0079]; [0082]).
As per claims 4 and 14, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the indication of the warning comprises causing generation of a visual display visible via the second XR device, wherein the visual display indicates the configured first XR safe area or the second XR safe area (Stafford: [0070]; [0073]).
As per claims 5 and 15, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 1 (claim 11), further comprising:
generating, by the control circuitry, a configured second extended reality (XR) safe area, wherein the configured second XR safe area includes no overlap in the physical space with the configured first XR safe area (Madden: [0165]; [0171]-[0174]; where the first XR application assigned to a lower priority inherently includes generating, by the control circuitry, a configured second extended reality (XR) safe area), wherein the configured second XR safe area is associated with the second XR device (Madden: #540; [0153]); and
based at least in part on determining, by the control circuitry, that the first XR device (Madden: #541) is approaching a boundary of the configured second XR safe area or has crossed the boundary of the configured second XR safe area, generating an indication of a second warning to the second XR device (Madden: [0095]; [0175]-[0176]).
As per claims 6 and 16, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 5 (claim 15), further comprising:
generating a buffer zone between the configured first XR safe area and the configured second XR safe area (Stafford: [0070]; [0073]).
As per claims 7 and 17, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 5 (claim 15), wherein the generating the configured first XR safe area is performed such that a size of the configured first XR safe area relative to the size of the configured second XR safe area is based at least in part on an average activity level generated by a first application active for the first XR device and the average activity level generated by a second application active for the second XR device (Madden: [0160]-[0162]; [0164]-[0166]).
As per claims 8 and 18, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 5 (claim 15), wherein (Stafford: Fig. 9 discloses) the generating the configured first XR safe area (Stafford: Game Zone of User A) is performed such that the configured first XR safe area is approximately equal in size to the configured second XR safe area (Stafford: Game Zone of User B).
As per claims 9 and 19, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 1 (claim 11), wherein (Madden: Fig. 5 discloses) the configured first XR safe area (Madden: #503) is generated such that a majority of an area of the configured first XR safe area (Madden: #503) is located in an area unchanged from a majority of an area of the first XR safe area (Madden: #502).
As per claim 11, Madden discloses a system (Abstract) comprising:
a memory ([0161]-[0162]; where a memory is inherently present); and
control circuitry (Fig. 5, #520) configured to:
detect an overlap in a physical space of a first extended reality (XR) safe area (#502) and a second extended reality (XR) safe area (#501; [0152]-[0153]; [0158]), wherein the first XR safe area (#502) is associated with a first extended reality (XR) device (#541; [0153]);
generate by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the detecting the overlap, a configured first extended reality (XR) safe area (#503), wherein the configured first XR safe area (#503) includes no overlap in the physical space with the second XR safe area (#501; [0171]-[0174]);
store the configured first XR safe area in the memory ([0161]-[0162]; [0165]-[0166]);
determine, by the control circuitry, that a second extended reality (XR) device is approaching a boundary of the configured first XR safe area (i.e., the first player's reserved space) or has crossed the boundary of the configured first XR safe area (i.e., the first player's reserved space; [0175]-[0176]); and
based at least in part on the determining, generate an indication of a warning to the second device ([0095]; [0113]).
However, Madden does not explicitly teach based at least in part on the determining, generate an indication of a warning to the second XR device.
Stafford teaches based at least in part on the determining, generate an indication of a warning to the second XR device ([0070]; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second XR device of Madden include the warning disclosed by Stafford so as to provide a textual warning that is rendered at the display portion of the second XR device.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden in view of Stafford in view of Black (US 20200238177).
As per claims 10 and 20, Madden in view of Stafford discloses the method (system) of claim 5 (claim 15).
However, Madden in view of Stafford do not teach based at least in part on determining that the first XR device is approaching a boundary of the configured second XR safe area or has crossed the boundary of the configured second XR safe area, causing a display by the first XR device indicating a path to the configured first XR safe area.
Black teaches causing a display by the first XR device indicating a path to the configured first XR safe area (Fig. 6; [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method (system) of Madden in view of Stafford include the indication of the warning disclosed by Black so that based at least in part on determining that the first XR device is approaching a boundary of the configured second XR safe area or has crossed the boundary of the configured second XR safe area, indicate to the user where he is relative to the safe move zone contained within the overhead view (Black: [0055]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 7 and 17 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Madden (US 20230196681). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection as presented above.
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 Nelson Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-8044. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm-9pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571 272-7776. 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.
/Nelson Lam/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
/KE XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights