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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group V with claims 1, 10, 14-16 and 19-20 in the reply filed on October 7, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2018/0352282 by Lin.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a first device (para. 18 – see system), comprising: a processor assembly (para. 18 – see processor); and storage accessible to the processor assembly and comprising instructions executable by the processor assembly to (para. 18 – see memory): facilitate a racing simulation (para. 35 – see racing video game); receive biometric input associated with a user (para. 36 – see observed user reactions through biometric sensors); and based on the biometric input, provide one or more outputs related to the racing simulation (para. 36 – see the modified vehicle behaviors based on the biometric input).
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) 10, 14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2022/0047951 by Mehdi.
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses providing force feedback (para. 23) and a steering wheel input device (para. 42). However, Lin does not explicitly disclose providing force feedback at a steering wheel as part of facilitating the racing simulation. Mehdi discloses this at para. 49. Because the references are from a similar art and concerned with a similar problem, see vehicle simulation games, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to construct Lin with Mehdi’s force feedback. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to do so because doing so allows for a more immersive user environment.
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses a racing simulation as noted above however Lin is silent regarding control an electronic seat belt as part of the racing simulation. Mehdi discloses this at para. 49. Because the references are from a similar art and concerned with a similar problem, see vehicle simulation games, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to construct Lin with Mehdi’s force feedback. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to do so because doing so allows for a more immersive user environment.
Regarding claim 15, Mehdi discloses the first device of Claim 14, wherein the instructions are executable to: control the electronic seat belt to tighten at a first seat belt anchor point (para. 49 – see seat belt feedback control).
Regarding claim 16, Mehdi discloses the first device of Claim 14, comprising the electronic seat belt (para. 49 – see seat belt feedback control).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, these claims are rejected as noted above regarding claim 10 and/or claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715