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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 18 March, 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1-5, 9, 12-17, 21-25, 33, and 38-39 are pending. Claims 6-8, 10-11, 18-20, 26-32, and 34-37 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 9, 12-17, 21-25, and 33 have been amended. Claims 38-39 have been added.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to address objections to the claim language are satisfactory; however, the amendments have introduced further objections. See claim objections below.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to address rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered. While most of the issues have been resolved, in claim 17 “the domain” is still confusing because it is not clear what domain is being referred to (claim 1 recites multiple domains). Furthermore, the amendments introduce new issues. The issues largely arise due to claim 1’s introduction of “respective subjects” and subsequent references to “the respective subject” and “the subject”. This causes confusion in various claims over which subject is being referred to. See 112(b) rejections below.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to address rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are satisfactory, therefore all 112(d) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicants arguments regarding the Double Patenting rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. The amendments to claim 33 restrict claim 33 to depend only from claim 1, however a double patenting rejection for such a dependency existed. Other amendments were typographical in nature and therefore do not change the arguments presented in the previous Office action. See Double Patenting rejections below.
Applicants arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Kur does not suggest having multiple devices, or configuring a system to cause an event in one domain based on data from a sensor from a device in a second domain. The examiner agrees, noting that Kur was brought in as a secondary reference, and that it was argued in the previous Office action that Kur in view of Fischer and Mullen would suggest such. Furthermore, these limitations have been added to the amended claim 1.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not motivate causing an event in another domain where the event may not affect a subject. Applicant asserts that the domain sensors and actuators are not worn by the subject, referring to paragraphs 54-59 of the specification.
The examiner disagrees that the prior art does not motivate the above limitations of the amended claim. As the specification makes clear in ¶34, “from the perspective of a subject, the ‘domain’ represents everything outside the subject and may include other humans or animals”. In other words, given subject A and subject B, from A’s perspective B is considered part of the domain, and vice-versa. As argued in the previous office action, Mullen clearly motivates enabling players in different physical locations to play on the same virtual playfield. Combining the teachings of Mullen and Kur with Fischer, it would have been obvious to cause sensors, devices, and actuators in separate domains to interact and influence one another; this is a satisfactory description of playing laser tag between subjects in separate environments.
See the 103 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the word “form” in “…in response to instructions form the plurality of domain devices” should be changed to “from”; and
In claim 39, the word “communication” in “…each of the plurality of domain devices are configured to communication” should be changed to “communicate”.
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 1-5, 9, 12-17, 21-25, 33, and 38-39 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.
Claim 1 recites that subject devices are to be worn by “respective subjects” and subject sensors are “for the respective subjects”, then recites that the plurality of subject sensors are for monitoring “the respective subject’s behavior” and that each subject device receives sensor data from the subject sensors monitoring “the respective subject”. This is confusing because the language transitions from plural to singular without antecedent basis for a particular subject. The confusion persists in claims 3, 5, 9, 16, and 17.
The examiner believes that Applicant intends to convey that the system comprises many devices and sensors which are used by multiple subjects, then attempts to describe the function of the devices and sensors at the individual level. However, it becomes unclear exactly what the relationship between the devices, sensors, and subjects is. Does each subject wear only one subject device, or can a single subject wear multiple subject devices? Do multiple subject sensors monitor a single subject, or is each subject monitored by only a single subject sensor?
Again, when the claim recites that “each subject device [is] arranged to receive sensor data from the plurality of subject sensors monitoring the behavior of the respective subject”, what is this meant to convey? Does this mean that the subject device worn by a particular subject receives data from all sensors monitoring the particular subject? Does each subject device receive data from all subject sensors i.e. “the plurality of subject sensors”?
For examination purposes, the following excerpt from claim 1:
a plurality of subject devices to be worn by respective subjects;
a plurality of subject sensors for the respective subjects for monitoring the respective subject's behavior including one or more body worn or carried sensors, each subject device arranged to receive sensor data from the plurality of subject sensors monitoring the behavior of the respective subject;
will be interpreted as:
a plurality of subject devices to be worn by subjects;
a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subjects’ behavior, the plurality of subject sensors including one or more body worn or carried sensors, wherein each subject device is arranged to receive sensor data from subject sensors monitoring the behavior of a subject.
Furthermore, in claims 3, 5, 9, 16, and in the first instance of the term in claim 17, “the subject” will be replaced with “a subject”.
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 16 are confusing for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 and will be interpreted as described in the rejection of claim 1 for examination purposes.
Claim 17 is confusing for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 and will be interpreted as described in the rejection of claim 1 for examination purposes. Furthermore, claim 17 recites “the domain” which is confusing because claim 1 recites multiple domains, therefore it is unclear which domain is being referenced. For examination purposes it will be assumed that “the domain” should be replaced with “a domain”.
Claims 2, 4, 12-15, 21-25, 33, and 38-39 depend from claim 1, therefore they inherit the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/274169 in view of Fischer (US 20180353845 A1) and Mullen (US 20050049022 A1) and Kur (US 20190213901 A1).
Regarding claim 33, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/274169 discloses the limitations of claim 33, respectively, save that the simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprises a system according to claim 1. However, these features would have been obvious in view of Fischer, Mullen, and Kur, as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 found below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6, 9, 12-17, 21-25, 33/1-6, 33/9, 33/12-17, 33/21-25, 34/33/1-6, 34/33/9, 34/33/12-17, and 34/33/21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 20180353845 A1) in view of Mullen (US 20050049022 A1) and Kur (US 20190213901 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses a system for monitoring the behavior or a human or animal subject (¶2: the system is directed to laser tag systems; such systems monitor the behavior of groups of players), the system comprising:
a plurality of subject devices to be worn by subjects (Fig. 2, gaming vest 200; ¶47 refers to “vests 200…of other users”); a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subjects’ behavior including one or more body worn or carried sensors (¶32: a gaming vest has a plurality of infrared sensors for detecting infrared beams from a laser tag sword; the sensors on a given vest monitor the subject who is wearing the vest, and the collection of subject sensors monitor the collective behavior of the players), wherein each subject device is arranged to receive sensor data from subject sensors monitoring the behavior of a subject (¶57: “The vest will detect hits from enemy weapons via IR sensing”);
a server arranged to receive sensor data from the plurality of subject devices (¶47: “All devices may communicate with a central server...The operations described herein may be performed by microprocessors on any device or the central server.” ¶44: “the gaming vest 200 or gaming headset 300 has pads which detect physical hits from the laser tag sword 100. When a pad receives a physical hit the pad then sends a signal to the microcontroller 220 and the player is hit and receives game damage.” Thus the server may receive sensor data from the pad indicating a hit.) and to transmit instructions based on data from the plurality of subject sensors (as an example, ¶38 discusses two players’ swords hitting each other at the same time, and the microcontroller determining that both players have scored a hit and instructing that no or less damage be taken than if either player were individually hit. See above, where all may communicate with a central server which can perform all microprocessor operations); and
a plurality of actuators for causing one or more events (¶32: “The gaming vest 200…may have one or more speakers 206 and one or more LEDs 218 to signify a hit”; ¶57 discusses receiving a vibration in response to a hit, and it is clear from context that the vibrator is on the vest) in response to instructions from another device (the IR signal from another device such as a melee weapon instructs the vest to use an actuator to register a “hit”).
Note that while Fischer’s invention involves melee weapons (Abstract), Fischer does disclose that laser tag games often incorporate guns (¶3-4; ¶60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of to include laser tag guns as well as melee weapons so that players can play with them.
Fischer does not explicitly disclose a plurality of domain devices to be located in respective domains and to receive instructions from the server; a plurality of domain actuators for causing one or more events in the respective domains in response to instructions from the plurality of domain devices; and that the system is configured to cause an event in one of the respective domains based on data from one of the plurality of subject sensors from one of the plurality of subject devices in a second of the respective domains.
Mullen discloses a system for allowing players in different physical domains to play on the same virtual playfield (Abstract), and includes domain devices in different respective domains (Abstract: “In one multiplayer actuality embodiment, two game devices may communicate…information to a remote database such that the two [users] may interact on different physical playfields, but play on the same virtual playfield”).
Kur discloses a system for monitoring the behavior of a human or animal subject (Abstract: “A motion tracking system tracks motion of one or more users”), the system comprising: a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject’s behavior including one or more body worn or carried sensors (Abstract: “A motion tracking system tracks motion of one or more users. In embodiments, the users wear one or more sensors on their bodies to allow tracking by the motion tracking system”; see also Fig. 1, motion tracking system 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Mullen and Kur with the invention of Fischer by causing the subject sensors to comprise Kur’s motion tracking sensors on Fischer’s vests (thus enabling location data for physically remote players to be communicated, enabling them to play together virtually), supplying Kur’s motion tracking system, then configuring a plurality of domain devices (player vests) to be located in respective domains (physically separate locations) and to receive instructions from the server (to facilitate virtual laser tag); a plurality of domain actuators (actuators on player vests, the definition of a “domain actuator” being player-dependent; to a given player, any other player’s actuators would be “domain actuators”) for causing one or more events in the respective domains in response to instructions from the plurality of domain devices (a given other player’s vest (their “domain device”) can instruct one of its actuators to activate; thus a domain actuator causes an event (sound, flash, vibration) in response to an instruction from its vest); and by configuring the system to cause an event in one of the respective domains (a “hit” notification in a first domain) based on data from one of the plurality of subject sensors (a “hit” being received) from one of the plurality of subject devices (the vest detects the hit and communicates it to the central server) in a second of the respective domains. Doing so would enable a group of physically separated people to play laser tag.
Regarding claim 2, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the plurality of subject sensors comprise one or more of position sensors (Kur, Abstract: the motion tracking system may sense position through sensors on a user; see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Fischer discloses that the plurality of subject sensors comprise one or more sensors on equipment carried by the subject (Abstract: each player may have melee weapons, and “the laser tag melee weapons contain infrared emitters, infrared receivers, microprocessors, accelerometers, and gyroscopes.”).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the plurality of subject sensors comprise one or more of cameras, other surveillance devices, and microphones (see rejection of claim 1 and Kur, ¶44: the motion tracking system 130 can include “one or more cameras” and “temperature sensors, proximity sensors, noise sensors, and/or other suitable sensors”).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the plurality of subject devices comprises a personal situation monitoring device configured to inform the subject about a current situation (the vest informs the subject when they are hit).
Regarding claim 9, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. In the following, consider two players, where the first player is the “subject” and the second player is playing from a remote location identified with the “domain”. Then, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches that the system comprises a plurality of domain sensors arranged to detect one or more events in one of the respective domains (the sensors for the second player), wherein the server (see rejection of claim 1) is arranged to receive sensor data from the plurality of domain sensors and to transmit instructions based on data from the plurality of domain sensors (for example, to communicate movement of the second player to the first player); and a plurality of subject actuators for causing one or more events at the subject in response to instructions from the server (in the case where the second player shoots and hits the first player in the virtual environment, the first player’s vest may vibrate; see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. Defining the “domain” as in claim 1, the subject would be outside a domain (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, defining the “domain” as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur to cause the system to provide a subject with a simulated view of an area in which a domain is apparently situated, so that a first player may visualize a second player in the virtual environment.
Regarding claim 17, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, defining the “domain” as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur to cause the system to provide a subject with a simulated view of a domain from a perspective not available to the subject, so that a first player may visualize a second player in the virtual environment.
Regarding claim 21, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. In the following, let the “domain” and “domain device” be defined as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1). Fischer also discloses that a vest may receive both IR signals and Bluetooth signals (¶57: in a blocking situation, a Bluetooth command from a shield to a vest may indicate a block, which has priority over buffered IR data). Consider also that Fischer teaches that any of the devices may comprise a microprocessor (¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fischer with the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur by configuring one or both of the plurality of subject devices and the plurality of domain devices (recall from the rejection of claim 1 that these are all vests) to record sensor data from multiple sensors, wherein data is received from different sensors at different rates and the plurality of subject devices are configured to record different proportions of data from different sensors. Doing so would facilitate gameplay as Fischer envisioned, such as enabling one to e.g. determine whether a block prevents a hit or not (a vest’s processor may receive and buffer IR and Bluetooth sensor data; these data may be of different rates and proportions, or in any case one would expect that the IR and Bluetooth will not always exactly correspond in rate and proportion).
Regarding claim 22, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 21. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur to configure one or both of the plurality of subject and device sensors to record sensor data according to the level of confidence in the data accuracy, so as to filter out data that is clearly inaccurate (such as if a faulty sensor continuously sends a saturated signal).
Regarding claim 23, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 21. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur to configure one or both of the plurality of subject and device sensors to determine the level of accuracy of data from one sensor based on data from another sensor, so as to discover faulty sensors (if one of multiple sensors gives a constant signal, but the others vary in reasonable ways, one may conclude that the first sensor is faulty).
Regarding claim 24, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, defining the “domain” and “domain device” as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur to configure the plurality of domain devices to determine whether an instruction from a server to cause an event (such as a vibration due to a hit) has already been implemented, in order to avoid causing the event again.
Regarding claim 25, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, defining the “domain” and “domain device” as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and considering the scenario of blocking a hit (see rejection of claim 21), Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches that the plurality of domain devices is configured to receive an instruction from a server to cause an event (such as a vibration in response to a hit from a laser gun from a person in a remote location), and to determine before implementing the instruction whether the timing of the instructed event is suitable having regard to the progress the event or received sensor data (such as if a block was implemented within a predefined time of the shot from the other player’s laser gun).
Regarding claim 33, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other (as when two physically remote players play laser tag in the same virtual environment; see rejection of claim 1), the system comprising:
an apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual (each player sees the virtual environment; see Abstract of Mullen); and
one or more sensors for sensing activity by a real individual in a real environment (see Kur, Abstract and rejection of claim 1); and
a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects (that is, a system which simulates a hit on a physical player by a physical response of a player’s vest; see rejection of claim 1); the system being configured such that:
an action by a real individual in the virtual environment causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment, by the simulation apparatus (that is, a second player’s virtual character performs shoots, and in response a first player is notified of a hit); and
an action by a real individual in the real environment causes the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual (that is, a first player’s trigger pull on a laser gun simulates a shot in the virtual environment for the second player).
Finally, the simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprises a system according to claim 1 (it comprises a vest, which is a system in claim 1; note that stating the simulation apparatus comprises “a system according to claim 1” can reasonably be interpreted as comprising some set of interacting things in agreement with claim 1).
Regarding claim 38, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches that each of the plurality of subject devices (vests) are configured to communicate directly with at least one of the plurality of subject actuators to transmit instructions based on the data from the plurality of subject sensors (the vests receive communication from IR sensors of a hit, then instruct an actuator to activate; see rejection of claim 1 and note Fischer’s teaching from ¶47 that “the operations described herein may be performed by microprocessors on any device”).
Regarding claim 39, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 38, and further teaches that each of the plurality of domain devices (vests of “other” players) are configured to communicate directly with the plurality of domain actuators to transmit instructions based on data from the plurality of domain sensors (same arguments apply here as in the rejection to claim 38, noting that the designation of “domain” just signifies that they are not a given subject’s own devices/sensors).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 39, and further teaches that the system is configured to implement a set of rules for causing events based on data from the plurality of subject sensors (rules for communicating movement, updating the virtual environment, responding to shots with a laser gun or attacks with a melee weapon, etc.).
Fischer discloses that players may use a sword or shield to block hits. In response to this, the sword or shield may command a vest to ignore incoming infrared (IR) data (such as from laser guns) for a short period of time (¶57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fischer with the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur by configuring one or both of the plurality of subject devices and the plurality of domain devices to implement at least one of the rules independently of a server (such as implementing a rule in the vest to forego a vibration for a predetermined time in response to a command from a sword of shield to block a hit; see Fischer, ¶57). Doing so would allow the vests to perform a local function quickly.
Regarding claim 13, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 12. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur to configure one or both of the plurality of subject devices and the plurality of domain devices to process sensor data to determine whether to cause an event or to transmit the data to the server for the server to determine whether to cause an event. Doing so would enable the vests to work independently to perform some events, or to defer to a central system to make a determination for events where other information can also be taken into account.
Regarding claim 14, Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur teaches the limitations of claim 13. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fischer in view of Mullen and Kur to cause the set of rules to prioritize certain events according to certain sensor data or combinations of sensor data, and the determination is according to the priority of the determined event (such as in a blocking situation, where a Bluetooth command from a shield to a vest implementing a block has priority over buffered IR data; see ¶57 of Fischer). Doing so would be useful to maintain a clear response in a case where competing data is received in rapid succession.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Delamont (US 20200368616 A1) discloses a mixed reality system for one or more users (Abstract). The invention enables laser tag systems with augmented reality (¶4) and includes a game server, vests, and motion sensors among other equipment to support gameplay (¶35).
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 ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights