DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 8/12/25. Claims 6-9 are cancelled; claims 1 and 10 are amended; claims 11-16 are added. Claims 1-5 and 10-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 is rejected for claiming a product and process in the same claims. Per MPEP 2173.05(p), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)(claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCracken et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0253905).
With respect to claim 10, McCracken et al. teaches a computer readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing at least one computer of a virtual experience providing system, the system providing a virtual experience in a virtual reality image based on a virtual world 25 representing a real world or an artificial world (paragraph [0017]), to a user 22 who rides a rideable mobile body 20, to: generate a basic movement command which is a movement command to the rideable mobile body 20 based on a steering operation of the user (paragraphs [0022]; [0027]); and generate, when a predetermined event has occurred in the virtual world (predetermined event being following instruction object 104 in the virtual world), an event action command (i.e. change in velocity, stop the ride vehicle, start the ride vehicle, spinning of the vehicle; each of these are inherently different than a prescribed steering selection/operation), wherein the event action command is a command for causing the rideable mobile body 20 to perform an even action that is predetermined according to the predetermined event (paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0049]-[0050]), the even action command being a command different from the basic movement command (predetermined event being following instruction object 104 in the virtual world), the program causing the at least one computer of the virtual experience providing system to operate the rideable movable body 20 based on both the basic movement command and the event action command (paragraph [0039] – movement “additional” to the direct movement initiated by input signals from the steering user input device 34) wherein, when causing the rideable mobile body to perform an operation based on both the basic movement command and the event action command, the processor generates an event action command that does not interfere with an operation based on the basic movement command (i.e. an event action command contemplated in paragraph [0039], such as “move faster to provide a more exciting ride” or “move slower” to allow users to “collect more points”, which does not interfere with an operation based on the basic movement command (i.e. steering)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0253905) in view of Ilardi et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0302776).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 16, McCracken et al. teaches a virtual experience providing system 12 and method that provides a virtual experience in a virtual reality image based on a virtual world 25 representing a real world or an artificial world (paragraph [0017]), to a user 22 who rides a rideable mobile body 20, the system and method comprising: a storage medium 60 configured to store computer-readable instructions; and a processor 58 connected to the storage medium 60 (paragraph [0023]), the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to: generate a basic movement command which is a movement command to the rideable mobile body 20 based on a steering operation of the user (paragraphs [0022]; [0027]); and generate an event action command (i.e. change in velocity, stop the ride vehicle, start the ride vehicle, spinning of the vehicle; each of these are inherently different than a prescribed steering selection/operation), different from the basic movement command when a predetermined event has occurred in the virtual world (predetermined event being following instruction object 104 in the virtual world), wherein the event action command is a command for causing the rideable mobile body 20 to perform an event action that is predetermined according to the predetermined event (paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0049]-[0050]); the processor operates the rideable movable body 20 based on both the basic movement command and the event action command (paragraph [0039] – movement “additional” to the direct movement initiated by input signals from the steering user input device 34)
McCracken fails to expressly teach wherein the processor generates a command for an operation of moving the rideable mobile body backward as the event action command when the predetermined event in which the user who rides the rideable mobile body collides with an object has occurred. However, analogous art reference Ilardi teaches this feature to be known in the art – virtual collision, paragraphs [0027], [0029]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the “collision” feature of Ilardi with the system of McCracken et al. The motivation to combine is to improve the realism of the system, and also introducing a skill-based maneuverability component. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the primary functionality of McCracken is not frustrated.
7. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0253905) in view of Ilardi et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0302776) and further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0148115).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, McCracken et al. fails to expressly teach a correction command as claimed. However, analogous art reference Ilardi teaches that it is known for a system processor to generate a correction command for changing a relationship between the steering operation and a basic movement command as an event action command based on an environment in which a rideable mobile body is placed with respect to a virtual object (paragraphs [0027] – the correction command being an adjustment to prevent a collision). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the “collision” feature of Ilardi with the system of McCracken et al. The motivation to combine is to improve the realism of the system, and also introducing a skill-based maneuverability component. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the primary functionality of McCracken is not frustrated. The combination would teach wherein the event action command is based on an environment in which the rideable mobile body is placed in the virtual world of McCracken, since McCracken teaches wherein the system objects are placed within its virtual world via the HMD of the user.
Admittedly, McCracken et al. teaches wherein the steering operation is performed using a traditional steering wheel, as opposed to a movement of a center of gravity of the user, wherein the basic movement command is based on the movement of the center of gravity detected using a sensor mounted on the rideable mobile body. However, Hirabayashi teaches these features to be known in the art – sensor 66, gravitational center computation unit 84 (paragraphs [0045]-[0056]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious modify the rideable mobile body of McCracken et al. with the rideable mobile body of Hirabayashi. The proposed modification is to use a known and highly entertaining mobile body. Moroever, Hirabayashi recognizes the benefits of its ridable mobile body having a small footprint (paragraph [0002]), which would be beneficial to systems that have a small area to operate. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as McCracken et al. expressly contemplates wherein the system can be operated with only a single passenger ridable mobile body (paragraph [0018]).
8. Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0253905) in view of Ilardi et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0302776) and further in view of in view of Hake (US Pub. No. 2018/0369702).
With respect to claims 3-4 and 13-14, McCracken et al. teaches wherein the rideable mobile body has a function of moving the user (i.e. spinning the vehicle - paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0049]-[0050]), and the processor generates a command for an operation of moving as the event action command based on the steering operation of the user Id. Admittedly, the spinning motion is distinct from moving the user up and down as claimed. However, within the art, it is known to actuate a passenger seat to move up and down on a rideable mobile body system as evidenced by Hake at paragraphs [0028]-[0031]. The rationale to combine is to provide a known actuation movement to induce various sensory simulations, further improving the immersive experience of the system. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the primary functionality of McCracken is not frustrated.
9. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0253905) in view of Ilardi et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0302776) and further in view of in view of Schwartz et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0329480).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, McCracken et al. teaches wherein the processor generates a command for an operation of decreasing the velocity or spinning of the rideable mobile body in response to a change in an environment in the virtual world as the event action command when a specific predetermined event has occurred (paragraph [0040]). Admittedly, this reduced velocity or spinning function fails to meet the limitation of the mobile body comprising a blower. However, within the art, it is known for a rideable mobile body to comprise a blower configured to blow on a user of the mobile body as evidenced by Schwartz et al. (paragraphs [0017], [0042], [0049]). At the time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a special effect to a user, including a blowing effect, in combination with the operations applied to the mobile body (i.e spinning, reducing the velocity). The rationale to combine is extolled by Schwartz at paragraph [0042] – “provide a unique experience to the user”. Examiner notes, when the special effect of the air blower is applied in conjunction with the decrease in velocity, or spinning function, the limitation of the blower being activated in response to a change in an environment in the virtual world as the vent action command when a specific predetermined event has occurred is met.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Kang (WO 2020/027531).
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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711