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 .
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant’s RCE Response filed on 08/20/2025 has been entered.
This is a Non-Final Action responsive to communications: Applicant’s RCE Response. Applicant’s RCE Response included an Amendment to the Specification, an Amendment to the Claims, and Remarks.
In light of the Amendment to the Claims, it appears that claims 55, 56, 65-72, 93-98, and 109-112 have been newly amended. Therefore, claims 55-82 and 93-112 are currently pending in the application. Claims 55, 71, and 97 are independent claims.
The specific objection to claims 65-70, 97, and 110-112 (see: Final Action, p. 6) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
The objection to the specification (see: Final Action, pp. 7-8) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Specification.
The specific rejection of claims 60, 76, and 102 (see: Final Action, p. 12) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,933,320 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 55-82 and 93-112 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Dependent claim 67 is not fully underlined. There is an underlining gap between the words “a” and “minimum” on line 2 of the claim. Thus, the claim does not fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(d)(2).
Dependent claim 96 contains a minor typographical error wherein it states “at ;east two” (emphasis added) on line 1 of the claim.
Additionally, claims 55-82 and 93-112 are generally not fully in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(c) which at least states “Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims” (underline emphasis added).
First, the Amendment to the Claims does not include “on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims.” Page 10 of the Remarks states that “claims 55-82, 93-112 are currently pending” but does not disclose the status of all canceled claims (i.e., claims 1-54). Second, pages 10-12 of the Remarks do not appear to show all changes from the previous version (filed on 01/21/2025) of the claims. For example, claims 65-70 show no indication that each claim dependency has been changed (i.e., from claim 1 to claim 55). In light of 37 CFR 1.173(c) and MPEP 1453(V)(D), the Examiner notes that Applicant is best suited to inform the Office and the public on which claims have been amended and specifically show where those amendments have been made.
As noted in MPEP 1453(II), “The failure to submit the claim status will generally result in a notification to applicant that the amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive (see 37 CFR 1.135(c)). Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 55-82 and 93-112 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims 1-13, 16-31, 34-49, and 52-54 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,772. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because corresponding claims 1-13, 16-31, 34-49, and 52-54 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,772 contain every element of claims 55-82 and 93-112 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 55-82 and 93-112 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. An application claim is not patentably distinct from a patent claim if the application claim is anticipated by the patent claim.
The Examiner notes, in regard to Applicant’s Remarks (see: Remarks, p. 12), that a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is either a reply by Applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference patent’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 55-82 and 93-112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding substantially similar independent claims 55, 71, and 97, the specification of the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent does not appear to provide written description support for normalizing the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input value “in response to the application defining a minimum to maximum scale range.” Specifically, the disclosure of the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent only appears to teach (e.g., see: Goetgeluk ‘320 – column 6, line 59 – column 7, line 16; column 19, lines 58-60; column 21, column 29-31; Figs. 33 and 34) that the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input value are normalized into a minimum to maximum scale range as defined by gaming input descriptors (e.g., USB HID joystick/game pad descriptors). That is to say, the disclosure of the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent appears to be silent on teaching: (i) conditionally (i.e., “in response to” – e.g., see: Goetgeluk ‘320 – column 10, lines 52-59) normalizing the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input value, and (ii) the application, instead of the gaming input descriptors, defining a minimum to maximum scale range.
For example, the above claim language can be directly contrasted with the similar and fully supported limitation of independent claim 1 of the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent: “normalizing, at the processor, the 2-dimensional Cartesian coordinates into a minimum to maximum scale range.” Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view the Applicant to have been in possession of the subject matter newly claimed based on the specific instance disclosed in the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent (e.g., see: MPEP 2163(II): “a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 ‘merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.’ LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed”).
Dependent claims 56-70, 72-82, 93-96, and 98-112 are similarly rejected at least via dependency from their corresponding independent claim.
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.
Claims 55-82 and 93-112 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.
Regarding substantially similar independent claims 55, 71, and 97, the claims each twice recite “the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input value.” There is insufficient (unclear) antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests the claim language be amended to “the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values” (emphasis added). In addition to clearing up the antecedent basis issue, said amendment would be consistent with similar claim language in the related RE49,772 patent.
Further, it is unclear in each of independent claims 55, 71, and 97 if the final limitation is (1) transmitting the normalized at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values, or (2) is merely transmitting the translated at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values.
Dependent claims 56-70, 72-82, 93-96, and 98-112 are similarly rejected at least via dependency from their corresponding independent claim.
Dependent claims 67, 93, and 109 each recite the limitation “wherein the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values are normalized to a minimum to maximum scale range is defined by gaming input descriptors.” In light of the amendments to corresponding independent claims 55, 71, and 97, the metes and bounds of the claim scope is unclear. That is to say, it is unclear if the claimed “the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values” are being normalized a second time in light of gaming input descriptors and if the minimum to maximum scale range is the same as or distinct from the previously recited minimum to maximum scale range. As an example, similar to dependent claim 13 of the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to simply state “wherein the minimum to maximum scale range is defined by gaming input descriptors.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 55, 59, 65-71, 75, 81, 82, 93-97, 101, and 107-112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0111670, published 04/30/2009) in view of Butterfield (U.S. Patent No. 6,135,928, published 10/24/2000) in further view of Wilson (U.S. Patent No. 8,456,419, published 06/04/2013).
-In regard to substantially similar independent claims 55, 71, and 97, Williams teaches a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium for generating an input for controlling an application from movement of a user within a concave platform of an omnidirectional locomotion system configured to support a user on the concave platform (Williams: Paragraph 16: “a locomotion platform device permits a user to walk, run, crouch, jump or change direction…includes an upward facing, parabolic, concave surface upon which the user stands while performing the motions…allow omni-directional motion”; Paragraph 56: “the movement thus obtained is suitable for detection via electronic sensors. The data thus derived can be used by a computer program for…user input”; Paragraph 81: “The system can be connected via USB to a console or PC as a direct replacement for a hand-held gamepad”; Figs. 1, 2, 6, and 25), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
359
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving, from at least two or more sensors, movement data from movement within the concave platform configured to support the user on the platform (Williams: Paragraphs 56-59 – “the movement thus obtained is suitable for detection via electronic sensors…movement detection mechanism 42 comprises a number of three-dimensional (3D) tracking sensors or devices…movement detection is accomplished by using either accelerometers attached to the user’s body or by an optical solution such as a camera”; Paragraphs 61-63 – “the platform 32 includes a plurality of switch elements or pressure sensors 58 that are activated as the user’s feet 54 (with or without footwear 60) press downwardly upon the sensors 58”);
calculating, at a processor, a velocity from the movement data (Williams: Paragraph 57 – “These 3-D devices output channels of information that corresponds to their X, Y and Z position…A computer program that samples the X, Y, and Z position at sufficient intervals can compute the user’s speed and direction”; Paragraph 61 – “By analyzing the position and sequence of activated sensors, relative to time, the user’s speed and direction is computed”);
calculating, at the processor, a heading from the movement data (Williams: Paragraph 57 – “These 3-D devices output channels of information that corresponds to their X, Y and Z position…A computer program that samples the X, Y, and Z position at sufficient intervals can compute the user’s speed and direction”; Paragraph 61 – “By analyzing the position and sequence of activated sensors, relative to time, the user’s speed and direction is computed”); and
transmitting, movement input values as the input for controlling the application (Williams: Paragraph 12 – “as well as change the way that computer games are played”; Paragraph 56 – “data thus derived can be used by a computer program…as user input”; Paragraphs 58-59 – “motion detection can occur in the context of a first-person computer game…allowing players to interact with games using motion”; Paragraph 81 – “locomotion platform…The system can be connected via USB to a console or PC as a direct replacement for a hand-held gamepad”; Paragraph – 84: “control an avatar (i.e., virtual character)”).
The Williams reference specifically teaches wherein the calculated velocity and the heading are used as at least one of a forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values (Williams: Paragraph 6: – “movements can be monitored and the data used as input to a computer program”; Paragraph 56 – “data thus derived can be used by a computer program…as user input”; Paragraphs 58-59 – “motion detection can occur in the context of a first-person computer game…to move forward and back…detect any leg 20 movement and interpret this as forward movement. Backward movement…the user would see the user’s own virtual legs move at the same time and by the same amount as the user’s real legs…allowing players to interact with games using motion”; Paragraph 62 – “data from platform 52 may be used in any manner a computer program chooses”; Paragraph 81 – “locomotion platform…The system can be connected via USB to a console or PC as a direct replacement for a hand-held gamepad”; Paragraph – 84: “control an avatar (i.e., virtual character)”).
To the extent that it could be argued that the Williams reference does not explicitly show “translating, at the processor” the velocity and the heading into said at least one of a forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values, the Butterfield reference shows, in the same field of endeavor as the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent and the Williams reference, translating, at a processor, a velocity and a heading into at least one of a forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values (Butterfield: column 1, lines 1-15: “Actions of the user are translated by the computer into inputs that effect the virtual environment in which the user is in”; column 4, lines 58-63: “the virtual reality processor 126 with measurements of the direction and velocity…so that those movements can be input and translated by the virtual reality processor 126 into movements of the user within the virtual world”; column 10, lines 1-7: “translate these movements into velocity vectors approximating the position of the user within the virtual world”; column 11, lines 4-6: “Thus, the motion…can easily be translated into the motion (direction and speed) of the user within the virtual environment”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the velocity and the heading of Williams to have been translated into movement input values as taught in Butterfield, because Butterfield taught that said well-known functionality provided the benefit of ensuring that virtual reality processing equipment can simulate movement of the user correctly within a virtual space created (Butterfield: column 20, lines 54-62: “simulate movement of the user correctly”). Thus, the translating functionality of Butterfield would have enhanced the immersive virtual reality environments of the Williams reference by allowing the derived movement data to more easily conform to different games (Williams: Paragraph 62: – “The switch data from the platform 52 may be used in any manner a computer program chooses”; Paragraph 81 – “open up opportunities for game makers to exploit”).
The modified Williams reference does not specifically teach or suggest wherein its defined movement input values for a computer program or game (e.g., see: Williams: Paragraph 12 – “as well as change the way that computer games are played”; Paragraph 56 – “data thus derived can be used by a computer program…as user input”; Paragraph 58 – “motion detection can occur in the context of a first-person computer game. Such first-person computer games often use keys to move forward and back but the user can only move in the direction the user is ‘looking’ in the game (and that view is controlled by moving the mouse). Game-pads also work in a similar manner”; Paragraph 81 – “locomotion platform does not require specific game software to be written for it…The system can be connected via USB to a console or PC as a direct replacement for a hand-held gamepad”) are normalized in response to the application defining a minimum to maximum scale range.
In the related electronic device input art, Wilson teaches normalizing input values in response to an application defining a minimum to maximum scale range (Wilson: column 14, line 39 – column 16, line 63: “requires a series of correction and normalization factors to be established before it can compute the orientation of the pointer from the raw sensor values…these normalization factors are based on the maximum and minimum outputs that each axis of the magnetometer is capable of producing…Normalization factors are then computed via standard methods and stored for each magnetometer axis that convert the range represented by the maximum and minimum levels to a normalized range between 1.0 and -1.0…converting the readings to normalized values between 1.0 and -1.0 during a normalization procedure…Once the calibration procedure is complete, the object selection process is ready to compute the orientation of the pointer each time an orientation data message is received”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the modified Williams reference to have normalized its at least one of a forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values for a computer program or game into a minimum to maximum scale range as taught in Wilson, because Wilson taught that said well-known normalization functionality provided the benefit of helping simplify any calculations (Wilson: column 15, line 35 – column 16, line 63: “provided accurate results…using the previously computed normalization factors to simplify the calculations”).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 59, 75, and 101, the modified Williams reference teaches wherein the velocity is calculated by monitoring an acceleration of a foot of a user (Williams: Paragraph 57 – “tracking sensors or devices placed on or close to the user’s feet…may also be placed at a number of locations on the user’s body including, without limitation, legs”; Paragraph 59 – “As suggested above, a variety of methods are commonly available such as…XYZ trackers based upon accelerometers. Preferably, movement detection is accomplished by using either accelerometers attached to the user’s body”).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 65, 81, and 107, the modified Williams reference teaches further comprising: translating, at the processor, the heading relative to an orientation of a torso of the user (Williams: Paragraph 57 – “a number of three-dimensional (3D) tracking sensors or devices…these tracking devices 42 may also be placed at a number of locations on the user’s body including…torso…These 3-D devices output channels of information that corresponds to their X, Y and Z position relative to a magnetic source. A computer program that samples the X, Y, and Z position at sufficient intervals can compute the user’s speed and direction”)(emphasis added).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 66, 82, and 108, the modified Williams reference teaches further comprising: translating, at the processor, the heading relative to an orientation of a head of the user (Williams: Paragraph 48 – “The integrated head tracking detects which direction a player is facing”; Paragraph 57 – “a number of three-dimensional (3D) tracking sensors or devices…these tracking devices 42 may also be placed at a number of locations on the user’s body including…head. These 3-D devices output channels of information that corresponds to their X, Y and Z position relative to a magnetic source. A computer program that samples the X, Y, and Z position at sufficient intervals can compute the user’s speed and direction”)(emphasis added).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 67, 93, and 109, the modified Williams reference does not specifically teach or suggest wherein its defined movement input values for gaming (e.g., see: Williams: Paragraph 12 – “as well as change the way that computer games are played”; Paragraph 56 – “data thus derived can be used by a computer program…as user input”; Paragraph 58 – “motion detection can occur in the context of a first-person computer game. Such first-person computer games often use keys to move forward and back but the user can only move in the direction the user is ‘looking’ in the game (and that view is controlled by moving the mouse). Game-pads also work in a similar manner”; Paragraph 81 – “locomotion platform does not require specific game software to be written for it…The system can be connected via USB to a console or PC as a direct replacement for a hand-held gamepad”) are normalized to a minimum to maximum scale range defined by gaming input descriptors.
In the related electronic device input art, Wilson teaches normalizing input values into a minimum to maximum scale range defined by electronic component input descriptors (Wilson: column 14, line 39 – column 16, line 63: “requires a series of correction and normalization factors to be established before it can compute the orientation of the pointer from the raw sensor values…these normalization factors are based on the maximum and minimum outputs that each axis of the magnetometer is capable of producing…Normalization factors are then computed via standard methods and stored for each magnetometer axis that convert the range represented by the maximum and minimum levels to a normalized range between 1.0 and -1.0…converting the readings to normalized values between 1.0 and -1.0 during a normalization procedure…Once the calibration procedure is complete, the object selection process is ready to compute the orientation of the pointer each time an orientation data message is received”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the modified Williams reference to have normalized its at least one of a forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values for gaming into a minimum to maximum scale range as taught in Wilson, because Wilson taught that said well-known normalization functionality provided the benefit of helping simplify any calculations (Wilson: column 15, line 35 – column 16, line 63: “provided accurate results…using the previously computed normalization factors to simplify the calculations”).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 68, 94, and 110, the modified Williams reference teaches where the two or more sensors are located within the concave platform (Williams: Paragraphs 56-57 – “the movement thus obtained is suitable for detection via electronic sensors…movement detection mechanism 42 comprises a number of three-dimensional (3D) tracking sensors or devices placed on or close to the user’s feet…the sensors 42 are mounted in the platform”; Paragraph 61 – “platform 52 is of the same/similar concave shape…includes a plurality of switch elements or pressure sensors 58”; Paragraph 63 – “switch elements 58 could be in the form of a touch-sensitive membrane adhered to the top of the platform surface”).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that modifying the general location (i.e., the arrangement) of the two or more sensors would be a routine practice well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art (see: MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 69, 95, and 111, the modified Williams reference teaches where the two or more sensors are located outside the concave platform (Williams: Paragraphs 56-57 – “the movement thus obtained is suitable for detection via electronic sensors…movement detection mechanism 42 comprises a number of three-dimensional (3D) tracking sensors or devices…the sensors 42 are mounted…nearby”; Paragraph 59: “Preferably, movement detection is accomplished by using…an optical solution such as a camera”; Paragraph 66 – “Alternatively external devices, such as optical-electric sensors, could detect movement of the user’s legs 90 in a manner similar to that described above”).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that modifying the general location (i.e., the arrangement) of the two or more sensors would be a routine practice well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art (see: MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 70, 96, and 112, the modified Williams reference teaches where the two or more sensors are located under the concave platform (Williams: Paragraph 61 – “platform 52 is of the same/similar concave shape…includes a plurality of switch elements or pressure sensors 58”; Paragraph 63 – “Alternatively the switch elements 58 could be attached to the underside of the platform surface 56”).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that modifying the general location (i.e., the arrangement) of the two or more sensors would be a routine practice well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art (see: MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
Claims 56-58, 72-74, and 98-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0111670, published 04/30/2009) in view of Butterfield (U.S. Patent No. 6,135,928, published 10/24/2000) and Wilson (U.S. Patent No. 8,456,419, published 06/04/2013) in further view of Hutchings (U.S. Patent No. 6,122,960, published 09/26/2000).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 56, 72, and 98, the modified Williams reference does not specifically teach wherein its velocity is calculated by a distance a foot of the user travels divided by a time it took to travel the distance.
In the related art, Hutchings teaches wherein a velocity is calculated by a distance a foot of a user travels divided by the time it took to travel the distance (Hutchings: column 4, lines 7-42: “device for measuring the performance of people or objects utilizes accelerometers and rotational sensors to measure the speed…measure the length of each step, and the sum of steps can be used to calculate the distance traveled. The sum distance of a number of previous steps divided by the elapsed time is used to calculate the velocity”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the velocity of Williams to have been calculated as taught in Hutchings, because Hutchings taught that said functionality helped provide an easy, accurate, and instantaneous speed to a user (e.g., a jogger) (Hutchings: column 1, lines 40-58; column 2, line 66 – column 4, line 4 – “substantially increases the amount and accuracy of information available to users…the speed of the runmner can be easily and accurately determined”).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that implementing the velocity functionality of Hutchings in the modified Williams reference would have merely been a simple substitution of one well-known way to calculate a velocity for another well-known way to calculate a velocity (see: MPEP 2143(I)(B)) to obtain predictable results (i.e., the velocity of a moving user).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 57, 73, and 99, the modified Williams reference does not specifically teach wherein its velocity is calculated by a pedometry rate.
In the related art, Hutchings teaches wherein a velocity is calculated by a pedometry rate (Hutchings: column 4, lines 7-42: “measure the length of each step, and the sum of steps can be used to calculate the distance traveled. The sum distance of a number of previous steps divided by the elapsed time is used to calculate the velocity…A cycle is a period of time over which a discrete measurement is made, such as a step…Once the length of motion during a cycle is determined, the elapsed time is used to obtain the speed of the person or object...The sum length of several cycles is used to obtain the distance traveled”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the velocity of Williams to have been calculated as taught in Hutchings for the substantially similar rationale as discussed above with respect to dependent claims 56, 72, and 98.
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 58, 74, and 100, the modified Williams reference teaches wherein the pedometry rate is determined by monitoring a frequency of steps over a predefined interval (Hutchings: column 4, lines 7-42: “The sum distance of a number of previous steps divided by the elapsed time is used to calculate the velocity…A cycle is a period of time over which a discrete measurement is made, such as a step…Once the length of motion during a cycle is determined, the elapsed time is used to obtain the speed of the person or object...The sum length of several cycles is used to obtain the distance traveled”; column 14, lines 19-47: “a cycle is the period during which a new reference frame is defined and remains fixed…and can include several steps”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the velocity of Williams to have been calculated as taught in Hutchings for the substantially similar rationale as discussed above with respect to dependent claims 57, 73, and 99.
Claims 60-64, 76-80, and 102-106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0111670, published 04/30/2009) in view of Butterfield (U.S. Patent No. 6,135,928, published 10/24/2000) and Wilson (U.S. Patent No. 8,456,419, published 06/04/2013) in further view of Keal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0046586, published 02/13/2014).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 60, 76, and 102, the modified Williams reference does not specifically teach wherein the velocity is an angular velocity.
In the related art, Keal teaches wherein a velocity is calculated by an angular velocity (Keal: Paragraphs 27-29 – “the sensors can be in a hand, pocket, belt, purse, or other location coupled to the user, e.g., a pedestrian…the pedestrian’s velocity vector”; Paragraph 49 – “a time series of linear acceleration and angular velocity functions”; Paragraph 56 – “generate a robust estimate of…angular velocity of the sensor platform in the world coordinate system”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the velocity of the modified Williams reference to have been calculated by an angular velocity as taught in Keal, because Keal taught that said functionality provided the benefit of helping detect false user steps (Keal: Paragraph 49 – “step detector 140 can detect false steps by summing positive values of…a time series of linear acceleration and angular velocity functions, and the negative values of and declare not a step if such sums exceed a value”).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 61, 77, and 103, the modified Williams reference does not specifically teach wherein the angular velocity is a change in rotation of a foot of the user. In the related art, Keal teaches wherein the angular velocity is a change in rotation of a foot of a user (Paragraphs 27-29 – “the sensors can be in a hand, pocket, belt, purse, or other location coupled to the user, e.g., a pedestrian”; Paragraph 49 – “step detector 140 can utilize threshold values for…angular motion”; Paragraph 60 – “a small acceleration vector pointing to the left can appear when the left foot of the pedestrian steps forward, and similarly a small right acceleration can appear when the right foot of the pedestrian steps forward”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the angular velocity of the modified Williams reference to have been a change in rotation of a user’s foot as taught in Keal, because Keal taught that said functionality provided the benefit of helping reject false step detections (Keal: Paragraph 49 – “step detector 140 can utilize threshold values for…angular motion to reject false step detections”) as well as helping calculate a true heading (Keal: Paragraph 60 – “A true heading can be estimated…from the average of the alternating step acceleration directions”).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 62, 78, and 104, the modified Williams reference teaches wherein its 3-D devices output channels of information that corresponds to their X, Y, and Z position relative to a magnetic source (e.g., see: Williams – Paragraph 57) but does not specifically teach translating, at a processor, the heading relative to a real world axis.
In the related art, Keal teaches translating, at a processor, a heading relative to a real world axis (Keal: Paragraphs 27-29 – “Further, direction component can utilize the orientation to convert accelerometer-based information into a reference frame, e.g., world frame, with z-axis up from the surface of the earth”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the heading of the modified Williams reference to have been translated relative to a real world axis as taught in Keal, because Keal taught that said functionality helped determine a direction of travel of an object utilizing a sensor platform regardless of an orientation of the sensor platform relative to the object (Keal: Paragraphs – 2, 13, and 25-26).
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 63, 79, and 105, the modified Williams reference does specifically teach wherein the real world axis is magnetic North. In the related art, Keal teaches wherein the real world axis is magnetic North (Keal: Paragraphs 27-29 – “In another aspect, direction component 110 can enhance the world frame with information associated with a compass of the sensor platform, so that the world frame can be oriented towards magnetic north”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the real world axis of the modified Williams reference to have been magnetic North as taught in Keal for the substantially similar rationale as discussed above with respect to claims 62, 78, and 104.
-In regard to substantially similar dependent claims 64, 80, and 106, the modified Williams reference does not specifically teach calibrating, at a processor, the magnetic North to an initial orientation of the user by an offset. In the related art, Keal teaches calibrating, at a processor, the magnetic North to an initial orientation of a user by an offset (Keal: Paragraphs –27-29 and 33: “Direction component 110 can compute the rotation of the sensor platform about the z-axis of the world frame by solving for the rotation angle between the world frame and the p-frame, effectively solving for how the sensor platform is oriented with respect to a direction of travel, e.g., walking direction, of the pedestrian”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the magnetic North of the modified Williams reference to have been calibrated to an initial orientation of a user by an offset as taught in Keal for the substantially similar rationale as discussed above with respect to claims 62, 78, and 104.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive.
Double Patenting
Applicant notes (Remarks: p. 12) that “Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer contemporaneously with this response and requests this rejection be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that it does not appear that a terminal disclaimer was filed with Applicant’s RCE Response. That is to say, there is no terminal disclaimer currently on record in the instant reissue application. The Examiner agrees that filing a proper terminal disclaimer would overcome the pending nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As filing a terminal disclaimer is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Future responses with such an omission will be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03.
Wilson
Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 14-15) that the art of record does not teach or suggest “in response to the application defining a minimum to maximum scale range, normalizing the at least one of the forward, backwards, or sideways movement input values.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, as explained above, the Examiner notes that the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the argued limitation.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually (“the indicated sessions are used to determine the orientation of the pointing device and not movement of the user, as claimed”), 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). In the instant case, the Examiner notes that the Wilson reference was not relied upon in the rejections to specifically teach “movement of the user.” The combination of the Williams and Butterfield references plainly teach that limitation/concept.
Applicant also argues (Remarks pp. 15-16) that one skilled in the art would not look to a handheld pointing device to solve the problem solved by the inventor – translating/normalizing real world movements of a user into a virtual environment. Applicant argues that Wilson is non-analogous art at least because: (1) Wilson is not from the same field of endeavor (i.e., “the claimed invention is directed to a novel way of translating real-world movements from an omnidirectional locomotion system to a virtual world”), and (2) Wilson is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem (i.e., “broadly related to toll payments for traveling on a toll road with a mobile device”) faced by the inventor.
The Examiner notes that Applicant has properly indicated the two independent ways in which a reference can be considered analogous art (e.g., see: MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant and notes that the Wilson reference is clearly analogous art to the claimed invention of the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent. In reference to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner notes that: (1) “a virtual world” is not a current claim limitation, and (2) the argument to “toll payments” appears to be an accidental typo (e.g., copy/paste) and will not be addressed herein.
First, the Applicant too narrowly defines the problem to be solved by the inventor. As noted in MPEP 2141(II)(A)(2), “prior art that…solves a problem which is different from that which the inventor was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. (The Court in KSR stated that ‘[t]he first error…in this case was…holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve. The Court of Appeals failed to recognize that the problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter.” Here, the teachings of the Wilson reference explicitly teach solving one of the many problems (i.e., normalizing sensor values when used as input for an application of a computer system) addressed by the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent. The Examiner also notes that data normalization in general, along with its many benefits, is notoriously well-known across the electrical arts. This determination is buttressed by the fact that the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent (e.g., column 30, lines 50-51) and the Wilson reference (e.g., column 16, lines 44-47) disclose nearly identical motivations for normalizing data (i.e., “to facilitate ease of future vector calculations” vs. “to simplify the calculations”).
And while the Examiner has not asserted that the Wilson reference is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of the Goetgeluk ‘320 patent (the Wilson reference is clearly not directed to an omnidirectional locomotion system), the Wilson reference does explicitly relate to the field of translating/normalizing real world movements of a user (via movements of a hand-held pointing device) to control electronic components in a computing environment.
As stated in the Advisory Action mailed on 05/05/2025, the Wilson reference is at least reasonably pertinent to a particular problem (see above) with which the inventor was concerned. Specifically, Wilson teaches one of the notoriously well-known benefits of normalizing sensor values of an electronic device when used as input for an application of a computer system. As noted in MPEP 2141.01(a)(I), “A reference outside of the field of endeavor is reasonably pertinent if a person of ordinary skill would have consulted it and applied its teachings when faced with the problem that the inventor was trying to solve…If the problem to be solved is viewed in a narrow or constrained way, and such a view is not consistent with the specification, the scope of available prior art may be inappropriately limited.” Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art concerned with translating/normalizing real world movements of a user would have looked to the disclosed teachings and motivations provided by the Wilson reference. Constraining the problem, and thus the scope of available prior art, to only omnidirectional locomotion systems is improper. As also noted in MPEP 2141.01(a)(I), “The Federal Circuit reads KSR as ‘direct[ing] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly’.”
Keal
Applicant argues that the Keal reference is directed to “dead reckoning” and the techniques therein are wholly different from the techniques used for calculating movements of a user contained with a fixed space. Applicant notes that in the claims, the user is always in the same physical location and as such, dead reckoning cannot be used to provide any information useful in the instant claims.
The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s argument and agrees with Applicant that the Keal reference is generally related to “deduced reckoning navigation” systems. However, the use of the relied upon teachings of the Keal reference do not appear to conflict (e.g., teach away from the applied combination, change the basic principle of operation of the primary reference, render the primary reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, etc. – MPEP 2143.01(V)/(VI)) with the modified Williams reference. That is to say, the “techniques used for calculating movements of a user contained with a fixed space” are not claimed with sufficient specificity to preclude the relied upon teachings of the Keal reference. Nothing in the language of claims 60-64, 76-80, and 102-106 (i.e., the only claims for which the Keal reference is relied upon) require features/teachings of Keal that would not be reasonably combinable with the modified Williams reference. For example, dependent claims 60, 76, and 102 merely entail teaching that the known calculated velocity is an angular velocity and require nothing more. If the language of said claims more precisely claimed “the techniques used for calculating movements of a user” (e.g., an equation for calculating the angular velocity that Keal’s dead reckoning cannot achieve) then Applicant’s argument to this point would be more persuasive. The Examiner further notes that the “deduced reckoning navigation” system of Keal is not being bodily incorporated into the structure of the modified Williams reference.
As previously noted, it is immaterial that the Keal reference was previously considered by the Office (or elsewhere) and determined not to be pertinent. As stated in MPEP 1445, “As stated in 37 CFR 1.176, a reissue application, including all the claims therein, is subject to ‘be examined in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional application.’…Accordingly, the claims in a reissue application are subject to any and all rejections which the examiner deems appropriate. It does not matter whether the claims are identical to those of the patent or changed from those in the patent. It also does not matter that a rejection was not made in the prosecution of the patent, or could have been made, or was in fact made and dropped during prosecution of the patent; the prior action in the prosecution of the patent does not prevent that rejection from being made in the reissue application. Claims in a reissue application enjoy no ‘presumption of validity.’ In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232-233 (CCPA 1973); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 n.4, 218 USPQ 385, 389 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Likewise, the fact that during prosecution of the patent the examiner considered, may have considered, or should have considered information such as, for example, a specific prior art document, does not have any bearing on, or prevent, its use as prior art during prosecution of the reissue application.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s
disclosure. Please note the relevant cited prior art listed on the accompanying Notice of
References Cited (Form PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam L Basehoar whose telephone number is (571)272-4121. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:30PM.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at 571-272-3744. 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.
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights