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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 05/07/2026.
Claims 12-20 are pending.
Claims 1-11 were cancelled.
Claims 12, 13, 16-18 and 20 are amended.
Claim interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see remarks page 5, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112 (f) interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 (f) interpretation of claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see remarks pages 5 and 6, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112 (b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claims 16-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments, see remarks pages 6-8, filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Kuhne and Tomoroni fail to show or render obvious “measuring a relative distance between said first reference point and a second reference point, said second reference point being on the virtual reality display”, and “positioning, through said processor, the point of view of the virtual reality display depending on the relative distance measured step” as recited in claim 12”. Examiner notes, Kuhne discloses on par 18, user can orient themselves, by detecting a setting of the real vehicle element and adjust the images of the virtual environment, thus positioning the point of view of the virtual environment depending on the new adjusted position corresponding the real element. Examiner further notes, Kuhne discloses on par 18, detect a setting position of the real vehicle element made by the user and reflected on the virtual environment, thus it senses or measures a change in position relative to the position of the virtual element, where second element position is on the virtual environment. Examiner additionally notes, Kuhne discloses on par 22, simulation unit generates images of a virtual environment which are preferably displayed as 3D images by the VR glasses, thus reflecting any adjustments on the display of the virtual environment. Applicant further argues, “wherein said processor is configured to position the point of view of the virtual reality display according to a relative distance between a first reference point, a position of said first reference point relative to the support structure being know, and a second reference point on the virtual reality display”. Examiner notes, Kuhne discloses on paras 18 and 20, generating images of the virtual environment and displaying it on the VR glasses and adjusting the position of the virtual element in accordance with the real element, thus adjusting to the real element position is reflected on the virtual environment which is displayed on the VR glasses as the virtual element. Examiner notes, Kuhne disclose on par 18, the position of the real element, thus any position would have its reference to a coordinate frame from where its supported. Applicant further argues, “Kuhne and Tomonori fails to show or render obvious “said one or more physical elements being moved until the position and/or the orientation thereof determines a specific disposition of a user’s heel relative to a heel point, indicative of a standard position of the user’s heel” as recited in claim 12. Examiner notes, Kuhne discloses on par 19, real vehicle element can be adjusted to several different positions by means of an adjustment device, automatically adjusts the real vehicle element to correspond to the virtual position of the virtual vehicle element, thus the real vehicle element can be adjusted to the position of the virtual vehicle element. Examiner notes, Tomonori discloses on page 12 par 3 and 4, the position can be brought into contact with the appropriate position of the accelerator pedal and determining the specific position and orientation of the heel point indicative of a standard position of the user’s heel confirmed by the ergonomic experiments. Therefore, Kuhne and Tomonori teach adjusting the real vehicle element automatically in accordance to the virtual vehicle element to determine the standard or ergonomic heel position and orientation. The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 12-20 are maintained.
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhne (DE 102015003884 A1), submitted by the Applicant in an IDS, in view of Tomonori et al. (JP2011-201510 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kuhne teaches a method for checking and/or configuring an arrangement of physical elements of a vehicle, said method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a test apparatus configured to simulate the arrangement of the physical elements of the vehicle, said test apparatus comprising a support structure to which one or more physical elements are associated, a position and/or an orientation of said one or more physical elements being adjustable relative to the support structure, said physical elements comprising at least one of
b) acquiring or processing, by a processor, a virtual model representative of an arrangement of the one or more physical elements relative to the support structure of the test apparatus (¶ 0014-0015; Kuhne teaches a simulation unit designed to generate images of the virtual environment set to the real vehicle elements; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
c) arranging the one or more physical elements in such a way that the position and/or the orientation of said one or more physical elements relative to the support structure coincide with the position and/or the orientation of a corresponding one or more physical elements in said virtual model (¶ ¶ 0016; Kuhne teaches arranging real vehicle elements to positions corresponding the selected vehicle model);
d) interfacing said user with said processor by a virtual reality display, wherein the acquired or processed virtual model is displayed from a given point of view (¶ 0019; Kuhne teaches a head-mounted display device of the vehicle simulation setup displaying images of the read vehicle elements to user to view); and
e) acquiring, and transmitting to said processor, data indicative of movements of the user (¶ 0019; Kuhne teaches a head-mounted display device of the vehicle simulation setup displaying images of the read vehicle elements to user to view; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
wherein step c) comprises:
c1) defining a first reference point, a position of said first reference point relative to the support structure being known (¶ 0018; Kuhne teaches a predetermined reference object on the real vehicle and its position for adjustment; a predetermined reference object and its position comprise line including a plurality of points for adjustment, so it can be broadly interpreted a point on and position of the predetermined reference object for adjustment corresponds to a first reference point, a position of said first reference point relative to the support structure being known);
c2) measuring a relative distance between said first reference point and a second reference point, said second reference point being on the virtual reality display (¶ 0018; Kuhne teaches adjusting a predetermined reference object position on the real vehicle to match position of its corresponding element on the virtual model; this teaching implies that there is a measurement of a relative distance between said first reference point and a second reference point, said second reference point being on the virtual reality viewer); and
c3) positioning, through said processor, the point of view of the virtual reality display depending on the relative distance measured step c2) (¶ 0018; Kuhne teaches detecting setting position of one real vehicle element and adjusting its position to match its corresponding element in the virtual model; this teaching inherently implies positioning, through said electronic processing unit, the point of view of the virtual reality viewer depending on the relative distance measured step c2); and
wherein step c) is carried out by moving the one or more physical elements as a function of a distance of said one or more physical elements from one or more pre-determined reference points, identified relative to the support structure, until the position and/or the orientation of the one or more physical elements coincides with the position and/or the orientation of said one or more physical elements in the acquired or processed virtual model, said one or more physical elements being moved until the position and/or the orientation thereof (¶ 0018; ¶ 0018; Kuhne teaches adjusting a predetermined reference object position on the real vehicle to match position of its corresponding element on the virtual model; this teaching implies that there is a measurement of a relative distance between said first reference point and a second reference point, said second reference point being on the virtual reality viewer).
Kuhne does not teach:
determines a specific disposition of a user’s heel relative to a heel point, indicative of a standard position of the user’s heel.
However, Tomonori teaches:
determines a specific disposition of a user’s heel relative to a heel point, indicative of a standard position of the user’s heel (p. 12 ¶ ¶ 4).
Kuhne and Tomonori are analogous art because they are in the same field of checking and/or configuring an arrangement of physical elements of a vehicle. 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 teachings of Kuhne and Tomonori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Tomonori’s teachings would have improved pedal operability effectively with a simple configuration (Tomonori, p. 1 Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Kuhne and Tomonori in combination teach the method of claim 12, Kuhne further teaches comprising:
f) processing, by said processor, the virtual model acquired in step b) and obtaining an integrated virtual model further comprising virtual elements, representative of elements inside and/or outside the vehicle, to simulate a real use condition of the vehicle (¶ 0019; this paragraph exactly teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Kuhne and Tomonori in combination teach the method of claim 12, Kuhne further teaches comprising:
g) interfacing said user with a plurality of wearable sensors, each one adapted to transmit a signal representative of its position and/or motion in space (¶ 0022; Kuhne teaches a head-mounted display device including VR glasses, each of which corresponds to a sensor, adapted to transmit a signal representative of its position and/or motion in space).
Regarding claim 15, Kuhne and Tomonori in combination teach the method of claim 12, Kuhne further teaches:
wherein step c) is carried out by electro-mechanical adjustment (¶ 0024; Kuhne teaches real motor vehicle elements can be adjusted; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhne (DE 102015003884 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kuhne teaches a test apparatus for checking an arrangement of physical elements of a vehicle, the test apparatus comprising:
a support structure joined to one or more physical elements, a position and/or an orientation of said one or more physical elements being adjustable relative to the support structure, said physical elements comprising at least one of a seat, a steering wheel, a pedalboard, a roof, a door, an armrest for a user of the test apparatus, a trunk compartment (¶ 0013; Kuhne teaches a motor vehicle arrangement comprising a support structure including one or more adjustable physical elements comprising a driver’s seat and a steering wheel);
a processor configured to acquire or process a virtual model representative of an arrangement of the one or more physical elements relative to the support structure of the test apparatus (¶ 0014-0015; Kuhne teaches a simulation unit designed to generate images of the virtual environment set to the real vehicle elements; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
a virtual reality display configured to display said virtual model from a given point of view (¶ 0019; Kuhne teaches a head-mounted display device of the vehicle simulation setup displaying images of the read vehicle elements to user to view); and
one or more sensors configured respectively to acquire and transmit data, indicative of movements of the user, to said processor (¶ 0019; Kuhne teaches a head-mounted display device of the vehicle simulation setup displaying images of the read vehicle elements to user to view; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
wherein said processor is configured to position the point of view of the virtual reality display according to a relative distance between a first reference point, a position of said first reference point relative to the support structure being known, and a second reference point on the virtual reality display (¶ 0018; Kuhne teaches predetermined reference object and its setting position of one real vehicle element, corresponding to a first reference point, and adjusting its position to match its corresponding element in the virtual model; this teaching inherently implies positioning, through said electronic processing unit, the point of view of the virtual reality viewer depending on the relative distance as recited).
Regarding claim 17, these limitations have been discussed in claim 14. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, these limitations have been discussed in claim 15. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Kuhne teaches the test apparatus of claim 16, wherein the support structure comprises rails and/or telescopic columns configured to slidingly
Regarding claim 20, these limitations have been discussed in claim 13. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vincenzo Belmonte, NPL, “Scientific adoption of virtual reality tools for ergonomic validation and design of a self-configurable seating-buck”, Published on March 28, 2018, discloses virtual reality tools used in the ergonomic validation process. Validations regarding the occupant compartment configuration in terms of accessibility, comfort, visibility, reachability and so on, is carried out by the realization of a buck.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights