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 .
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 1-20 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.
In independent claims 1, 8 and 9, the limitation "search(ing) a target movement velocity ratio matching with the human body posture" is missing context that would specify how (such as in what manner and/or where) a target movement velocity ratio is searched. This limitation also lacks specifying how a criterion of “matching” is to be determined (matching as judged against what basis of comparison, in other words). Because there are no details provided in the claims for how the step of “searching” is conducted, it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to describe 1) searching some database to find a value filtered from a plurality of pre-existing values that meets some matching criteria or 2) performing mathematical calculations in an attempt to discover a value for a target movement velocity ratio that meets some criteria. This limitation also does not provide sufficient context for “matching” – matching requires a definition of criteria that must be met and also must define what quantities or attributes are being compared (in other words, matching with what.)
Claims 1, 8 and 9 do not, for example, specify ---searching a database for a target movement velocity ratio that meets one or more predefined matching criteria when compared with a calculated movement velocity ratio representing the human body posture.--- This example illustrates what context may be missing in order to meet definiteness requirements for these claims.
In claims 2, 11 and 17, the adjective “actual” in the limitation “an actual length and width…” renders the claims indefinite. There is no basis provided from which actual length and width can be distinguished or contrasted from any other length and width that would not be considered actual quantities, and the term “actual” is not defined by the claim such that ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 4, 13 and 19 lack antecedent basis for the limitation “displaying the mapping relationship”. Parent claims 1 and 9, respectively, do not include a prior recitation of or definition of a mapping relationship.
Claims 6 and 15 lack antecedent basis for the limitation “before the position of the head-mounted device” – parent claims 1, 5, 9 and 14, respectively, do not contain a prior recitation of or definition of a position of the head-mounted device.
Claims 6 and 15 also contain a negative limitation that is unclear – “before the position of the head-mounted device is not at the target position”. It is not claimed whether this step requires a prior determination step where a current position of the head-mounted device is measured and then a judgement is made whether or not the current position matches a target position.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715