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 .
Priority
The instant application does not claim priority to any earlier applications, as such the date of priority of 10/19/2022 is granted to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “detect calibration input” should be –detect a calibration input--.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “detect calibration input” should be –detect a calibration input--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mechanism for mounting a phone to the balance board” in claims 1 and 21.
Paragraph [0008] of the instant application’s specification states, “A balance board phone mount can include a body that is configured to envelope a phone and a base that is configured to secure the body to the bottom of the board of the balance board.” With the drawings and later paragraphs of the specification further defining the structure of the phone mount.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-10, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nir et al. US 20180264321 A1, and further in view of Sauerbrei et al US 9101831 B2.
Regarding claim 1:
Nir teaches a balance board system (“The present invention relates to a system that enables a synergetic interface between an electric/electronic device (e.g. a mobile device, such as a smart phone, PDA, handheld computer or tablet) and unstable balance surfaces.” See paragraph [0084]) comprising: a balance board (Unstable balance surface 50) having a top surface (standing surface 40), a bottom surface (bottom surface 33), and a fulcrum that is fixed at a center of the bottom surface (See annotated figure 10a), wherein the fulcrum has an elongated semi-spherical shape to enable the balance board to freely yaw, pitch and roll (“The base of the surface is typically round (preferably spherical) at its bottom enabling tilting the unstable balance surface to any required direction (360 degrees).” See paragraph [0085]); a mechanism for mounting a phone to the balance board while a rider stands on the top surface of the balance board (“The main body portion 10 comprises a slidable drawer 11 configured to be inserted into a recess 15 (an indentation) within the main body portion 10. The recess 15 size is configured to receive the drawer with the mobile device mounted/fixed thereon.” See paragraph [1014] and figure 10a which depicts the phone mounted to the balance board system with the user standing on it); and software that is executable on the phone (“The application may be a real time game, a real time information display, and other sensor based application that responds according to the movement of the gyroscope and accelerometer sensors, which move according to the movement (tilt) of the surface.” See paragraph [0091]), the software being configured to output, to an external display (See figure 8C), a virtual environment that includes a representation of the balance board (see figures 9 and 10a-c which depict various games the software can run including an obstacle course style game where the balance board is represented as ball/circle 300, and in figures 10a-c the balance board is a circular sight 400) by continuously performing the following: obtaining orientation data from one or more sensors of the phone while the phone is mounted to the balance board (“The processor is configured to run applications that receive the gyroscope and accelerometer sensors data (e.g. location data) and respond accordingly.” See paragraph [0091]); based on the orientation data, tracking an orientation of the balance board indicative of the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board while the rider stands on the top surface of the balance board and causes the balance board to yaw, pitch and roll (“As a result, one can control applications and games through the movement of the body on the surface, by shifting weight in different directions, and causing a tilt accordingly.” See paragraph [0091] and figures 9 and10a which depicts a user playing a game by the software tracking the orientation of the balance board to align targets. Furthermore, the examiner notes that as stated in paragraph [0124], and the depiction of the other game depicted in figure 9 of Nir, the user must maneuver the ball along an obstacle course by rotating and tilting the balance board, therefore using the tracked yaw, pitch, and roll in order to control the game).
[AltContent: textbox (an embodiment of the mountable standing surface before being mounted on a BOSU device.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
640
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (fulcrum)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An example of an application game used with the system of the present invention is shown in FIG. 9 and relates to maneuvering a ball/circle 300 along a certain track bypassing obstacles 302.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
446
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
450
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nir fails to teach updating the virtual environment by orienting the representation of the balance board based on the tracked orientation of the balance board such that the yaw, pitch and roll of the representation of the balance board in the virtual environment matches the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board and outputting the updated virtual environment that includes the representation of the balance board to the external display to thereby allow the rider to watch the yaw, pitch, and roll of the representation of the balance board be updated within the virtual environment to match yaw, pitch and roll that the rider causes the balance board to experience.
The examiner notes that Nir does discuss updating the virtual representation of the balance board based on the tracked orientation of the balance board so that the virtual representation is oriented in accordance with the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board (The examiner notes that as mentioned above as the user plays the various games supported by the application which tracks the orientation of the balance board as discussed in paragraph [0124] where the obstacle course game depicted in figure 9 is explained that the real-time movements of the balance board are translated and reflected on the screen in-game); and outputting the updated virtual environment that includes the representation of the balance board to the external display to thereby allow the rider to watch the orientation of the representation of the balance board be updated within the virtual environment in accordance with the yaw, pitch and roll that the rider causes the balance board to experience (“The user stands on the unstable balance surface near an external display means. The game is viewed on the external display means. The ball is maneuvered according to the user tilting the unstable balance surface. The sensors provide the mobile device processor with real-time altitude/longitude/latitude changes. The ball 300 moves accordingly.” See paragraph [0124]). However, specifically that the new limitation of the virtual board representation’s yaw, pitch and roll, matching the yaw, pitch, and roll of the physical board is not taught by Nir.
Sauerbrei, however, teaches a video game controller with a position sensor and a proximity sensor provides user input signals for use in determining game states, and further teaches updating the virtual environment by orienting the representation of the balance board based on the tracked orientation of the balance board such that the yaw, pitch and roll of the representation of the balance board in the virtual environment matches the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board (“For example, in a skateboarding video game when the video game controller is tilted to the left as indicated by the accelerometers, a skateboard in the video game may be displayed as turning, or navigating, to the left in a virtual game environment.” See col. 4 lines 1-5, with the examiner noting that the definition of matching as provided by Merriam-Webster is “a person or thing equal or similar to another”, with the virtual representations has movements following the physical boards movements making them be equal or similar. The examiner further notes that col. 7 lines 33-50 discuss in more detail how the yaw, pitch and roll, of the virtual representation is created as a result of the accelerometer data gathered from the physical game control board and the virtual movements are created to match the physical movements or determine if tricks are being attempted.) and outputting the updated virtual environment that includes the representation of the balance board to the external display to thereby allow the rider to watch the yaw, pitch, and roll of the representation of the balance board be updated within the virtual environment to match yaw, pitch and roll that the rider causes the balance board to experience (“Motion (and/or position) of the video game controller, as indicated for example by the accelerometers, is used, for example by the processor of the game console, to determine a game character's actions and/or movement (and/or position) of a board associated with the game character in a game, and the actions and/or movement (and/or position) of the board are generally displayed on the display, for example as commanded by the processor of the game console.” See col. 3 lines 46-53 and figure 1 which depicts the virtual representation of the board and character displayed on a screen which the user watches while playing the video game).
PNG
media_image4.png
440
503
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nir to make the virtual representation of the balance board’s yaw, pitch, and roll in the games displayed on screen match the actual balance boards yaw, pitch and roll, as taught by Sauerbrei as this would increase the immersion of the system overall for the user, since they can have a physical and optical connection to the motions of the balance board and how they translate to the various game environments.
Regarding claim 2:
Nir as modified discloses the balance board system of claim 1, wherein the software tracks the orientation of the balance board relative to the external display (“The external display means display the running applications (e.g. games) in real-time and it is comfortable to operate the application when viewing the external display means. For example, a user may play a tilt based game when standing on a mountable surface at a distance of one and a half meters from a giant TV screen. This contributes to the game experience” See paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 4:
Nir as modified discloses the balance board system of claim 1, wherein the software is further configured to: detect, from the orientation of the balance board, that the rider has performed a particular motion on the balance board (“FIG. 10a shows a scenario where the practitioner has marked the left circle 101a. The user 500 then tilts the device leftwards. The sight accordingly moves leftwards to within the left circle 101a.” See paragraph [0126]); and cause feedback indicative of the particular motion to be output within the virtual environment (The examiner notes that the visual of the circular sight virtual representation moving according to the particular motion of the balance board is visual feedback).
Regarding claim 5:
Nir teaches the balance board system of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the particular motion is detected by comparing the orientation of the balance board to signatures of motions.
Sauerbrei, however, teaches a video game controller with a position sensor and a proximity sensor provides user input signals for use in determining game states, and further teaches that a particular motion is detected by comparing the orientation of the balance board to signatures of motions (“In block 617, the process determines a trick. A trick triggers a game action, for example, flip move by a skateboarder. The process determines a trick from the position determined in block 613 and the proximity data processed in block 615. For example, a Benihana trick may be determined when the processed proximity sensor data includes near proximity to a rear sensor and the determined position includes that the rear of the game controller is lifted to a high position.” See col.6 line 65- col. 7 line 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software of Nir to include a database or stored information that is used to compare the actual movements of the user on the balance board detected by the various sensors to predetermined signatures of various movements as taught by Sauerbrei, in order for the system to more accurately track attempts the user makes, successful motions, and how the user differs from the accepted movements when playing certain games in order to more accurately provide feedback or track their movements during the games.
Regarding claim 6:
Nir as modified discloses the balance board system of claim 4, wherein the feedback comprises one or more of: audible feedback; visual feedback (See rejection of claim 4); or a score.
Regarding claim 7:
Nir teaches the balance board system of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the particular motion is a trick.
Sauerbrei, however, teaches a video game controller with a position sensor and a proximity sensor provides user input signals for use in determining game states, and further teaches that the particular motion is a trick (“In some embodiments the game character performs different tricks based upon a combination of current proximity sensor output values and previous or current accelerometer output values, and the tricks may also depend on a range of proximity as indicated by the proximity sensor.” See col. 4 lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the software of Nir to include a game mode that can recognize motions and determine that a “trick” was performed as taught by Sauerbrei as Nir includes the option of different game modes already with the physical world gestures controlling an avatar (Such as the difference between the obstacle course game with the ball shown in figure 9 and the target alignment game shown in figures 10a-c), thus providing even more interactivity and gameplay options for the user if more game types are added.
Regarding claim 8:
Nir as modified discloses the balance board system of claim 4, wherein the software is further configured to: maintain statistics that include an indication that the rider has performed the particular motion (“Furthermore, medical personnel can review and analyze the treatment results either by printing the course of the game or printing a table with the sensor data transfiguration.” See paragraph [0125]. The examiner notes that medical personnel being able to receive a print of the course of the game or data collected from the sensor shows that the software is able to track and maintain statistics showing the user’s performance in the game(s) they play).
Regarding claim 9:
Nir teaches the balance board system of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the statistics also include one or more of: a number of times that the rider has performed the particular motion on the balance board; an indication that the rider has performed one or more other motions on the balance board ; an amount of time that the rider has used the balance board; or a number of calories that the rider has burned while using the balance board.
Sauerbrei, however, teaches a video game controller with a position sensor and a proximity sensor provides user input signals for use in determining game states, and further teaches wherein the statistics also include one or more of: a number of times that the rider has performed the particular motion on the balance board; an indication that the rider has performed one or more other motions on the balance board (“Motion (and/or position) of the video game controller, as indicated for example by the accelerometers, is used, for example by the processor of the game console, to determine a game character's actions and/or movement (and/or position) of a board associated with the game character in a game, and the actions and/or movement (and/or position) of the board are generally displayed on the display, for example as commanded by the processor of the game console.” See col.3 lines 46-53. The examiner notes that the software of Sauerbrei tracking the orientation of the board to control the game character which causes visual changes to the game scene as shown in figure 1 which is a screenshot of the game character performing the trick corresponding to the motion of the user is a visual indication that the trick was done, and would be reported in the data print that Nir has been discussed of creating above.) ; an amount of time that the rider has used the balance board; or a number of calories that the rider has burned while using the balance board.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software of Nir to include various indications, or tracked data corresponding to the performance of the user as taught by Sauerbrei as Nir already tracks data regarding the user motion/performance in order for analysis/feedback to be given so this would allow more feedback or information regarding such as the how the user exercises (efficiently or inefficiently for example), what motions they perform the most as they view the game during the exercise without needing to stop and view the data separately.
Regarding claim 10:
Nir as modified discloses the balance board system of claim 1, wherein the mechanism is one of: integrated into the bottom surface of the balance board; or a balance board phone mount that is separate from the balance board (“FIG. 3A shows an embodiment of the present invention with a basic standing surface 40 of an unstable balance surface 50 (BOSU) and a mountable standing surface 5 main body portion 10 configured to be mounted on the basic standing surface 40.” See paragraph [0109]) .
Regarding claim 21:
Nir teaches a balance board system (“The present invention relates to a system that enables a synergetic interface between an electric/electronic device (e.g. a mobile device, such as a smart phone, PDA, handheld computer or tablet) and unstable balance surfaces.” See paragraph [0084]) comprising: a balance board (Unstable balance surface 50) having a top surface (standing surface 40), a bottom surface (bottom surface 33), and a fulcrum that is fixed at a center of the bottom surface (See annotated figure 10a); a mechanism for mounting a phone to the balance board while a rider stands on the top surface of the balance board (“The main body portion 10 comprises a slidable drawer 11 configured to be inserted into a recess 15 (an indentation) within the main body portion 10. The recess 15 size is configured to receive the drawer with the mobile device mounted/fixed thereon.” See paragraph [1014] and figure 10a which depicts the phone mounted to the balance board system with the user standing on it); and software that is executable on the phone (“The application may be a real time game, a real time information display, and other sensor based application that responds according to the movement of the gyroscope and accelerometer sensors, which move according to the movement (tilt) of the surface.” See paragraph [0091]), the software being configured to output, to an external display (See figure 8C), a virtual environment that includes a representation of the balance board (see figures 9 and 10a-c which depict various games the software can run including an obstacle course style game where the balance board is represented as ball/circle 300, and in figures 10a-c the balance board is a circular sight 400) by continuously performing the following: obtaining orientation data from one or more sensors of the phone while the phone is mounted to the balance board (“The processor is configured to run applications that receive the gyroscope and accelerometer sensors data (e.g. location data) and respond accordingly.” See paragraph [0091]); based on the orientation data, tracking an orientation of the balance board indicative of the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board while the rider stands on the top surface of the balance board and causes the balance board to yaw, pitch and roll (“As a result, one can control applications and games through the movement of the body on the surface, by shifting weight in different directions, and causing a tilt accordingly.” See paragraph [0091] and figures 9 and10a which depicts a user playing a game by the software tracking the orientation of the balance board to align targets. Furthermore, the examiner notes that as stated in paragraph [0124], and the depiction of the other game depicted in figure 9 of Nir, the user must maneuver the ball along an obstacle course by rotating and tilting the balance board, therefore using the tracked yaw, pitch, and roll in order to control the game).
Nir fails to teach updating the virtual environment by orienting the representation of the balance board based on the tracked orientation of the balance board such that the yaw, pitch and roll of the representation of the balance board in the virtual environment matches the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board and outputting the updated virtual environment that includes the representation of the balance board to the external display to thereby allow the rider to watch the yaw, pitch, and roll of the representation of the balance board be updated within the virtual environment to match yaw, pitch and roll that the rider causes the balance board to experience.
The examiner notes that Nir does discuss updating the virtual representation of the balance board based on the tracked orientation of the balance board so that the virtual representation is oriented in accordance with the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board (The examiner notes that as mentioned above as the user plays the various games supported by the application which tracks the orientation of the balance board as discussed in paragraph [0124] where the obstacle course game depicted in figure 9 is explained that the real-time movements of the balance board are translated and reflected on the screen in-game); and outputting the updated virtual environment that includes the representation of the balance board to the external display to thereby allow the rider to watch the orientation of the representation of the balance board be updated within the virtual environment in accordance with the yaw, pitch and roll that the rider causes the balance board to experience (“The user stands on the unstable balance surface near an external display means. The game is viewed on the external display means. The ball is maneuvered according to the user tilting the unstable balance surface. The sensors provide the mobile device processor with real-time altitude/longitude/latitude changes. The ball 300 moves accordingly.” See paragraph [0124]). However, specifically that the new limitation of the virtual board representation’s yaw, pitch and roll, matching the yaw, pitch, and roll of the physical board is not taught by Nir.
Sauerbrei, however, teaches a video game controller with a position sensor and a proximity sensor provides user input signals for use in determining game states, and further teaches updating the virtual environment by orienting the representation of the balance board based on the tracked orientation of the balance board such that the yaw, pitch and roll of the representation of the balance board in the virtual environment matches the yaw, pitch and roll of the balance board (“For example, in a skateboarding video game when the video game controller is tilted to the left as indicated by the accelerometers, a skateboard in the video game may be displayed as turning, or navigating, to the left in a virtual game environment.” See col. 4 lines 1-5, with the examiner noting that the definition of matching as provided by Merriam-Webster is “a person or thing equal or similar to another”, with the virtual representations movements following the physical boards movements making them be equal or similar. The examiner further notes that col. 7 lines 33-50 discuss in more detail how the yaw, pitch and roll, of the virtual representation is created as a result of the accelerometer data gathered from the physical game control board and the virtual movements are created to match the physical movements or determine if tricks are being attempted.) and outputting the updated virtual environment that includes the representation of the balance board to the external display to thereby allow the rider to watch the yaw, pitch, and roll of the representation of the balance board be updated within the virtual environment to match yaw, pitch and roll that the rider causes the balance board to experience (“Motion (and/or position) of the video game controller, as indicated for example by the accelerometers, is used, for example by the processor of the game console, to determine a game character's actions and/or movement (and/or position) of a board associated with the game character in a game, and the actions and/or movement (and/or position) of the board are generally displayed on the display, for example as commanded by the processor of the game console.” See col. 3 lines 46-53 and figure 1 which depicts the virtual representation of the board and character displayed on a screen which the user watches while playing the video game).
Regarding claim 22:
Nir as modified discloses the balance board system of claim 21, wherein the software tracks the orientation of the balance board relative to the external display (See paragraph [0124] and the rejection of claim 21 above, where the software is described as tracking the sensors of the phone, housed in the balance board, as the user maneuvers through various games according to what is displayed on screen, where the movements of the user correspond relatively to the position of the balance board to the screen).
Regarding claim 24:
Nir as modified discloses the balance board system of claim 21, wherein the software is further configured to: detect, from the orientation of the balance board, that the rider has performed a particular motion on the balance board (“FIG. 10a shows a scenario where the practitioner has marked the left circle 101a. The user 500 then tilts the device leftwards. The sight accordingly moves leftwards to within the left circle 101a.” See paragraph [0126]); and cause feedback indicative of the particular motion to be output within the virtual environment (The examiner notes that the visual of the circular sight virtual representation moving according to the particular motion of the balance board is visual feedback).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17, and 23 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the balance board system of claims 1 and 21 as claimed in dependent claims 11 and 23 respectively including specifically wherein the software is further configured to: detect calibration input that is generated when the balance board remains fixed in a predefined orientation; in response to detecting the calibration input, calculate an updated offset; and apply the updated offset to the orientation data as part of tracking the orientation of the balance board such that the yaw, pitch and roll of the representation of the balance board is oriented based on the orientation data and the updated offset after the calibration input is detected.
In addition, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the balance board system of claim 1 as claimed in dependent claim 12, specifically wherein the mechanism for mounting the phone to the balance board comprises: a balance board phone mount comprising: a body having a top side and a bottom side, the body further having: a first side and a second side opposite the first side, the first and second side defining a width of the body, the width of the body exceeding a width of the phone, the first side and second sides being configured to fold overtop and be secured to one another to thereby hold the phone against the body; a first extension and a second extension opposite the first extension, the first and second extensions being configured to fold overtop and be secured to the first side and second side after the first side and second side have been folded overtop and secured to one another to thereby limit movement of the phone between the first and second sides; and a base positioned on the top side of the body, the base being configured to secure the body to a bottom the bottom surface of the balance board.
Furthermore, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the structures and configurations thereof of the phone mount of claim 12 as claimed in dependent claims 13-17.
The closest prior art of record includes Nir et al. US 20180264321 A1, Sauerbrei et al. US 9101831 B2, Cottam et al. US 20170007902 A1, Goo US 20070155495 A1, and Lee KR 20220161694 .
Each of the prior art references have been fully discussed in the previous actions, and above, including what is and is not taught either alone or in combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 in regards to the rejection previously presented under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of the Nir reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s amendment to the claims required an updated search and consideration and as a result the new rejection under 35 USC 103 in view of the combination of Nir and Sauerbrei has been presented above. As noted above Nir already allows the system to create a virtual representation of the balance board which moves in accordance to the movements of the physical balance board as the sensors of a phone housed on the board detect said movements including the yaw, pitch, and roll, however the new limitation that the virtual avatar/representation’s yaw pitch and roll must match that of the physical board’s is not taught solely by Nir, and therefore the modification of Nir by Sauerbrei has been presented.
In regards to the rejection under 35 USC 103 in view of the combination of Nir and Cottam with respect to the calibration steps, as a result of the new modification in view of Sauerbrei the examiner has indicated the subject matter of dependent claims 11 and 23 as allowable as it would not be obvious to modify the system of Nir to have the representation of the balance board’s yaw, pitch, and roll match the physical balance boards, and then further modify the system so that a calibration input is detected when the board is held in a specific position, so that the yaw, pitch, and roll, of the virtual board is further updated to depict the yaw, pitch, and roll, of the physical board after an offset has ben applied to the data due to the calibration steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/J.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784