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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 26 November 2025. Claims 1-14 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12-14.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11: “and of driving” should apparently read --and for driving-- or --and driving--.
In claim 1, lines 11-12: “the first and second artificial horizon lines” should apparently read --the at least one first and second artificial horizon lines--.
In claim 5, line 2: “are capable” should apparently read --is capable--.
In claim 5, lines 3-4: “the first artificial horizon line” should apparently read --the at least one first artificial horizon line--.
In claim 5, lines 4-5: “the second artificial horizon line” should apparently read --the at least one second artificial horizon line--.
In claim 6, line 2: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 7, line 2: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 8, line 2: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 9, line 2: the comma following “sources” should apparently be deleted.
In claim 10, line 2: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 10, lines 9-10: “the first artificial horizon line” should apparently read --the at least one first artificial horizon line--.
In claim 10, lines 11-12: “the second artificial horizon line” should apparently read --the at least one second artificial horizon line--.
In claim 13, line 1: “an anti-kinetosis device” should apparently read --the anti-kinetosis device--.
In claim 13, line 3: “said central upright” should apparently read --said at least one central upright--.
In claim 14, line 17: “the vehicle” should apparently read --the motor vehicle--.
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 1-14 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 1 and 14 each recite the limitation “a control unit.” As detailed in the previous Office action, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure whatsoever is disclosed or described for the control unit. No examples are given and the control unit is not taught to comprise any computer components, circuitry, processors, memory, programming, etc. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the at least one pair of light sources" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending claim 9 to depend upon claim 8 (which recites at least one pair of light sources) would obviate this rejection.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the virtual straight line" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; while the claim does previously recite a virtual straight line, this virtual straight line passes through light points on the first and third light columns (as opposed to the first and second light columns).
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the first light beam" in line 4 and “the second light beam” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as detailed in the previous Office action, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests determining in real time an acceleration frequency along each axis of a triaxial accelerometer and driving such display means only when the acceleration frequency along each axis is less than a threshold frequency below which kinetosis is likely to occur, in combination with the other recited components/steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are mostly persuasive in light of the amendments. Many of the objections and rejections have been withdrawn. However, as detailed supra, several persist.
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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791