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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 01/30/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 are withdrawn.
The specification objection of the Abstract for undue length is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are still pending.
AIA Notice
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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2018/0280791 A1 to Eno in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
2024/0020917 A1 to Ni et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
2024/0136705 A1 to HE et al.
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended) and similarly recited Claims 8-10, Eno discloses smartwatch-based somatosensory game method, comprising:
when a terminal starts a somatosensory game application, sending wake-up information to a smart watch by the terminal, thereby waking up a watch application smart watch, which enables smart watch of a user (paras. [0020], [0037] discloses a mobile wireless communication device (i.e. a terminal) that runs a game conducted among a plurality of players using corresponding wireless devices (i.e. somatosensory game application; a separate activity tracker device (smart watch) such as a Fitbit Smartwatch) is in communication with the mobile device and collects the user’s movement and activity data (somatosensory data) in paras. [0094], [0102]-[0104]);
when a somatosensory game in the somatosensory game application is started, obtaining the somatosensory data from the smart watch (in paras. [0094], [0100]-[0106], it discloses that once the game is active, the mobile device receives activity data from the activity tracker device).
However, Eno does not explicitly disclose the terminal sending wake-up information to the smart watch to wake a watch application installed in the smart watch, … obtaining the somatosensory data from the smart watch, … constructing a virtual controller at the terminal, and importing the somatosensory data into the virtual controller to generate of the user; and … transmitting and sending the motion trajectory data to the somatosensory game application to generate a game operation instruction.
Ni discloses the terminal sending wake-up information to the smart watch to wake a watch application installed in the smart watch (in paras. [0129], [0124]-[0135], Ni discloses a mobile phone (terminal) that, when a first VR application starts on the mobile phone, sends a VR start instruction to a paired watch, instructing the watch to switch from a normal running mode to a VR mode in which a corresponding watch application executes to collect user motion data) (The “VR start instruction” meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “wake up information” because it causes the watch application to transition into an operational state in which it collects and streams sensor data to the terminal – which is the function ascribed to “wake up information” in Applicant’s specification , para. [0089]); and … obtaining the somatosensory data from the smart watch (in paras. [0130]-[0138], it discloses that while the watch is in VR mode, motion/attitude data is collected by the watch sensors is transmitted to the mobile phone for use by the VR Application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eno’s multi-device gaming system with Ni’s application launch and wake up information because Eno is silent as to how its mobile device activates the sensor data collection function on the separate activity tracker and Ni supplies a known technique for invoking a companion mode on a paired smart watch. The combination yields the predictable results of ensuring the watch application is ready to stream data when the game requires it.
The combination, however does not explicitly disclose: “constructing a virtual controller at the terminal, and importing the somatosensory data into the virtual controller to generate of the user; and … transmitting and sending the motion trajectory data to the somatosensory game application to generate a game operation instruction.”
In a related invention, He discloses constructing a virtual controller at the terminal, and importing the somatosensory data into the virtual controller to generate of the user; and … transmitting and sending the motion trajectory data to the somatosensory game application to generate a game operation instruction (para. [0052], “In order to accurately determine the left wearing or right wearing, in some embodiments, a motion sensor, such as a gyroscope, can also be provided in the smart wearable device to acquire the user's motion, combining the motion data obtained by the gyroscope to further determine whether the smart watch is worn on the left hand or the right hand, the movement trajectory of the user's arm can be determined based on the spatial position data detected by the motion sensor; and based on the movement trajectory of the user's arm, it is determined whether the smart watch is worn on the left hand or the right hand. Specifically, when the user wears it on his left hand, there will be corresponding movement data when the user performs
movements such as raising his wrist after wearing it; when the user wears it on his right hand, there will be another corresponding movement data when the user performs movements such as raising his
wrist after wearing it; the two motion data will be different due to different motion trajectories, therefore, it can be determined whether the user is currently wearing the left hand or the right hand
based on the difference in the first length formed from the tangent point between the watchband 20 and the user's arm 100 to the connection point between the watchband 20 and the antenna base 10 and the difference in motion data obtained by the motion sensor. In some embodiments, the motion sensor serves as a sports watch, it can also acquire the user's motion data, and can generate gesture control instructions based on the motion data generated by the user to achieve the purpose of controlling the smart wearable device).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Eno to explicitly provide motion trajectory data as taught by HE in order to generate gesture control instructions based on the motion data generated by the user to achieve the purpose of controlling the smart wearable device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of the somatosensory game application of Eno to include waking the game application on the watch via the application on the phone, as taught by Ni et al., and to modify the method of Eno to explicitly motion trajectory data in order to generate gesture control instructions as taught by HE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered.
As an initial matter, the objection of the Abstract for undue length is hereby withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 are also hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant contends that Claim 1 clearly involves two different devices: a terminal and a smart watch. By citing paragraphs [0020] and [0037] of Eno, the Examiner contends that the mobile wireless communications device of Eno corresponds to the terminal of claim 1. Furthermore, a device cannot send wake-up information to itself (see pages 8-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The proper mapping of Eno discloses two separate devices in paragraphs [0007]-[0008], [0094], thus the terminal reads on the mobile device and the smart watch on the activity tracker. Additionally, regarding the “wake up information”, the claim requires only “wake up information” sufficient to wake a watch application. Ni’s “VR start instruction” that cause the watch to switch from a normal running mode to a VR mode is reasonably interpreted as wake-up information for the watch application within the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are examined above.
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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights