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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: audio visual device, an information obtainer and a determiner in claims 1-2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The support in specification : “[0096] The AV device 57 includes a display device, an audio device, an AV reproduction device, and the like. The AV device 57 is driven by the VR control function of the VR-ECU 51. [0047] The VR-ECU 51 is formed of a microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), and the like. The microcomputer reads and executes programs and data stored in the ROM, and operates to perform control of executing various functions of the VR-ECU 51 including a function of obtaining various pieces of information, a determination function to be described next, a calculation function, and a VR control function”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200055362 “Anderson”) in view of Fukami et al. (US Patent No. 7874279 “Fukami”).
Regarding claim 1 Anderson teaches A virtual space production apparatus (Fig. 44) comprising:
an audio visual (AV) device configured to provide AV information to an occupant of a moving body (“[0270]…… A virtual reality computer 983 may be used to produce video and/or sound that can be viewed and/or heard by using a virtual reality device 984”);
an actuator (Fig. 44 element 981) configured to generate load relating to vibration of the moving body (“[0193] As noted previously, in some embodiments, haptic signals, i.e. signals that may be sensed by individuals through their sense of touch, may be at least partially generated by one or more active suspension actuators inducing motion in at least a portion of a vehicle to generate vibrations and/or bumps perceptible to one or more occupants of the vehicle”);
and a controller (“[0281] The above-described embodiments of the technology described herein can be implemented in any of numerous ways. For example, the embodiments may be implemented using hardware, software or a combination thereof. When implemented in software, the software code can be executed on any suitable processor or collection of processors”) configured to control the AV device and the actuator, wherein the virtual space production apparatus produces a simulated experience for the occupant in a virtual space by driving the AV device and the actuator when providing a virtual reality (VR) service by using the moving body in a stopped state (“[0260] In addition to replicating motion, in some embodiments, an active suspension system of a vehicle may be used to induce certain vehicle body and/or wheel motions when the vehicle is parked, for example, in a parking lot, garage, or at another convenient location. These motions may be at least partially synchronized with at least one aspect of a video being observed by one or more occupants of the vehicle”),
the moving body is a vehicle with four wheels, the actuator has a function of assisting an expansion-contraction operation of a suspension device provided for each of the four wheels (Anderson “[0088]…… Therefore, an active damper, suspension system, actuator or other similar device may be used to apply a force in a compression and/or extension direction during a compression and/or extension stroke respectfully. Additionally, an active suspension system may also be used to apply resistive forces during some modes of operation. Therefore, in some embodiments, an active suspension system, or a sub-portion thereof, may operate in at least three of four quadrants of a force velocity diagram. [0165] While two wheel assemblies are shown in the embodiments, each including a damper and a spring, it should be understood that other types of suspension systems may be associated with each wheel. For example, in typical vehicles, the suspension system may be a passive or semi-active suspension system. Additionally, electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles typically have three or four wheels, though vehicles such as electric or hybrid electric motorcycles with only two wheel assemblies are also contemplated”), and
the virtual space production apparatus further comprising:
an information obtainer configured to obtain tilt information indicating tilt angle of the vehicle (“[0100] As noted previously, in some embodiments, a vehicle and/or suspension controller may be configured to accept one or more types of data such as one or more of vehicle acceleration, velocity and displacement in one or more directions as well as vehicle heave, roll and pitch from one or more sensors”), and
a determiner configured to determine whether or not the vehicle is in a tilt state (“[0130] In one exemplary embodiment, one or more controllers in a partially or fully autonomous vehicle may be used to adjust the speed of a vehicle so as to reduce the centripetal acceleration to which a vehicle is exposed while traversing an upcoming curve so that the vehicle could be maintained at, for example, a desired posture such as roll angle, maximum roll angle, and/or maximum roll rate below a certain threshold value which may otherwise be beyond, for example, the power, energy, force and/or frequency response limitations of an associated active suspension system. [0190….. In one such embodiment, for example, vehicle occupants may be informed of a direction and/or magnitude of an upcoming turn by, for example, the controller causing the vehicle to gradually “lean into” the turn (i.e. roll toward the center of the turn) a certain distance before the turn begins. However, roll in the opposite direction, away from the center of the turn, may also be utilized. This “lean” may communicate to passengers that the vehicle is about to turn as well as the direction of the turn. ”) but is silent about determine whether or not the vehicle is in a tilt state where the vehicle is tilted greater than a predetermined tilt angle threshold, based on the tilt information indicating the tilt angle of the vehicle;
However Fukami teaches determine whether or not a vehicle is in a tilt state where the vehicle is tilted greater than a predetermined tilt angle threshold, based on the tilt information indicating the tilt angle of the vehicle (Col 3 lines 44-47 “The vehicle may further comprise a tilting sensor capable of detecting that the vehicle body is tilted rightward or leftward with respect to a driving direction of the vehicle; and the motor controller may be configured to decrease the torque of the motor when the tilting sensor detects that the vehicle body is tilted a predetermined angle or larger”);
Fukami and Anderson are analogous art as both of them are related to vehicle data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Anderson by determining whether or not a vehicle is in a tilt state where the vehicle is tilted greater than a predetermined tilt angle threshold, based on the tilt information indicating the tilt angle of the vehicle as taught by Fukami.
The motivation for the above is to provide action to be performed by actuator to reduce slip of drive wheel with respect to surface.
Anderson modified by Fukami teaches wherein when the determiner determines the vehicle is in a tilted state where the vehicle is tilted greater than the predetermined tilt angle threshold, the controller reduces an expansion-contraction drive amount of at least the actuator out of the AV device and the actuator to an amount smaller than that in a normal state where the vehicle is not in the tilted state (Fukami Col 3 lines 30-35 “The engine may further comprise a slip detecting device configured to detect a slip of a drive wheel with respect to a ground surface; and the motor controller may be configured to decrease the torque of the motor to be lower than a value before detection of the slip when the slip detecting device detects occurrence of the slip. Col 3 lines 44-47 “The vehicle may further comprise a tilting sensor capable of detecting that the vehicle body is tilted rightward or leftward with respect to a driving direction of the vehicle; and the motor controller may be configured to decrease the torque of the motor when the tilting sensor detects that the vehicle body is tilted a predetermined angle or larger”.
Anderson “[0023] In yet another embodiment, an active suspension system includes at least one actuator capable of providing a force between a wheel and a vehicle chassis and a controller that commands force from the at least one actuator. The system also includes an input operatively connected to an audio signal and at least one sensor that senses at least one of a road, wheel, and chassis motion”),
and the expansion-contraction drive amount of the actuator is associated with providing the virtual reality service. (Anderson “[0264]….. In this embodiment, the active suspension system produces low frequency vibration in the vehicle body in response to this filtered audio signal by using one or more suspension system actuators. An active suspension control may operate the active suspension to induce motion in the vehicle to produce these audible vibrations may be produced while the vehicle is stopped and/or while the vehicle is traveling over a road where the active suspension system controls vehicle motion as well as performing the function of a subwoofer. In the embodiment in FIG. 43, the filtered audio signal input into the active suspension controller and played through the active suspension system may augment low frequency vibrations to produce an increased level of low frequency sound.).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson modified by Fukami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595 “Anderson_2”).
Regarding claim 2 Anderson modified by Fukami teaches when the vehicle is in the tilted state where the vehicle is tilted greater than the predetermined tilted angle threshold, the controller reduces the expansion-contraction drive amount of the actuator (Fukami Col 3 lines 44-47 “The vehicle may further comprise a tilting sensor capable of detecting that the vehicle body is tilted rightward or leftward with respect to a driving direction of the vehicle; and the motor controller may be configured to decrease the torque of the motor when the tilting sensor detects that the vehicle body is tilted a predetermined angle or larger”) but is silent about reduces the expansion-contraction drive amount of the actuator located on a side to which the vehicle is tilted less than the drive amount of the actuator located on a side oppose to the side to which the vehicle is tilted;
Anderson_2 teaches, reduce expansion-contraction drive amount of the actuator located on a side to which the vehicle is tilted less than the drive amount of the actuator located on a side oppose to the side to which the vehicle is tilted (“[1347]……. a controller adapted to control air pressure of the air spring and force from the linear actuator such that during detected vehicle roll, the controller increases air pressure in at least one air spring on the first side and creates an extension force on at least one actuator on the first side, and decreases air pressure in at least one air spring on the second side and creates a compression force on at least one actuator on the second side”);
Anderson_2 and Anderson modified by Fukami are analogous art as both of them are related to vehicle data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Anderson modified by Fukami by reducing expansion-contraction drive amount of the actuator located on a side to which the vehicle is tilted less than the drive amount of the actuator located on a side oppose to the side to which the vehicle is tilted as taught by Anderson_2.
The motivation is to properly control the drive amount of tilted side actuator to reduce slip of drive wheel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/08/2025 with respect to rejection under 35USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues see remarks page 5 “Claim 1 aims to provide a virtual-space production device capable of suppressing contact between the mobile body (i.e., a vehicle) and an object even when the mobile…….. In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action cites to Anderson '362 for teaching all features of the originally-claimed virtual space production apparatus except for the claimed control related to the determination of whether the moving body/vehicle is in a tilted state. The Office Action cites to Fukami to remedy this shortcoming. In rejecting claim 2, the Office Action cites to Anderson '595 for teaching different features related to control based on a vehicle tilt state.
In response to the rejection, Applicant notes that Fukami relates to a vehicle and motor controller for a vehicle, and Anderson '595 relates to an active vehicle suspension
system. Neither of Fukami and Anderson '595 relate to a virtual space production
apparatus or to the provision of a virtual reality space. It is only Anderson '362 that relates to a virtual space production apparatus and the provision of a virtual reality space”.
Examiner want to note that as applicant mentioned, primary reference Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200055362) teaches a virtual space production apparatus and the provision of a virtual reality space. Fukami is included to teach a comparison with a threshold and Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595) is included to teach part of claim 2. Primary reference Anderson teaches virtual space production and examiner proposed to include the teaching of Fukami and Anderson(US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595). Here examiner didn’t bodily incorporate all of the Fukami and Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595), the teaching of secondary references are applied on primary reference that teaches virtual reality space.
Applicant argues see remarks pages 5-6 “Thus, even if Fukami and Anderson '595 teach the claimed control features based on a determination of a tilted state of a vehicle, they only do so in the context of standard vehicle operation….. Fukami and Anderson '595 for standard vehicle operation to the alleged virtual space production apparatus and provision of a virtual reality space disclosed by Anderson '362. In this regard, there is no consideration of any issues associated with the provision of a virtual reality space disclosed in Anderson '595 or otherwise known in the art that would suggest the benefit of adding the control based on the determined tilt state allegedly taught by Fukami and Anderson '595”.
Examiner wants to note that even though Fukami and Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595) have standard vehicle operation, Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200055362) has standard vehicle operation as well and the effect of standard vehicle operation is shown in virtual reality space. Primary reference is modified to include the teaching of Fukami and Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595)’s teaching. As Fukami and Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595) are related vehicle data processing, the teaching of Fukami and Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210339595) can be integrated to the primary reference.
Applicant argues see remarks page 6 “Claim 1 is amended herein to emphasize that the claimed control based on the determined vehicle tilt state relates to the provision of virtual reality service, …..Thus, the cited art does not teach or suggest a virtual space production apparatus in which, "when [a] determiner determines the vehicle is in a tilted state where the vehicle is tilted greater than [a] predetermined tilt angle threshold, [a] controller reduces an expansion-contraction drive amount of at least [an] actuator out of [an] AV device and the actuator to an amount smaller than that in a normal state where the vehicle is not in the tilted state, and the expansion-contraction drive amount of the virtual reality service," as required by claim 1. actuator is associated with providing…..by claim 1”.
Examiner wants to note that as indicated above Anderson (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200055362) and Fukami teach amended and argued limitations of claim 1. Anderson teaches a determiner configured to determine whether or not the vehicle is in a tilt state ( see [0130]) but is silent about determine whether or not the vehicle is in a tilt state where the vehicle is tilted greater than a predetermined tilt angle threshold, based on the tilt information indicating the tilt angle of the vehicle;
However Fukami teaches determine whether or not a vehicle is in a tilt state where the vehicle is tilted greater than a predetermined tilt angle threshold, based on the tilt information indicating the tilt angle of the vehicle (Col 3 lines 44-47);
Examiner proposed to modify Anderson with Fukami’s teaching to provide action to be performed by actuator to reduce slip of drive wheel with respect to surface.
Anderson modified by Fukami teaches wherein when the determiner determines the vehicle is in a tilted state where the vehicle is tilted greater than the predetermined tilt angle threshold, the controller reduces an expansion-contraction drive amount of at least the actuator out of the AV device and the actuator to an amount smaller than that in a normal state where the vehicle is not in the tilted state See, Fukami Col 3 lines 30-35: Anderson “[0023] In yet another embodiment, an active suspension system includes at least one actuator capable of providing a force between a wheel and a vehicle chassis and a controller that commands force from the at least one actuator. The system also includes an input operatively connected to an audio signal and at least one sensor that senses at least one of a road, wheel, and chassis motion”.
Anderson [0264] teaches, the expansion-contraction drive amount of the actuator is associated with providing the virtual reality service.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612