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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18/219100, filed 7/7/23, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Furthermore, the limitations of “at least one tag for use in tracking a simulated weapon (gun) the WITS device is coupled to; a coupler configured to firmly couple the WITS device to the gun” are not recited in prior Application No. 18/219100, 17/751694, 17/015425, or 15/865731. Therefore, the priority for the aforementioned limitations is 12/14/23.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11204215. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application are merely broader in scope than that of U.S. Patent No. 11204215. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 11204215 application “invention” meets the limitations of the instant application.
Instant Application
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 11204215
Claim 1
A wireless independent tracking system (WITS) device for use with a simulated weapon in a virtual reality (VR) environment, the WITS device comprising:
at least one tag for use in tracking a simulated weapon (gun) the WITS device is coupled to; a coupler configured to firmly couple the WITS device to the gun.
A wireless independent tracking system (WITS) module for use with a weapon simulator in a virtual reality (VR) environment, the WITS module comprising:
at least one tag for use in tracking a weapon simulator (gun) the WITS module is coupled to; a shot detector that detects a shot being fired by the gun; a shot counter that counts a number of shots fired; a transmitter that sends a signal to a smart magazine of the gun when the gun is out of virtual ammunition; and a coupler configured to couple the WITS module to a rail of the weapon simulator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) as being anticipated by Kur et al. (2020/0408480).
Re Claim 1,
Kur discloses a wireless independent tracking system (WITS) device for use with a simulated weapon in a virtual reality (VR) environment (Fig 1, 14), the WITS device comprising:
at least one tag for use in tracking a simulated weapon (gun) the WITS device is coupled to; a coupler configured to firmly couple the WITS device to the gun (Fig 14, ¶¶0084-0086; active tags 1455, coupler 1435).
Re Claim 13,
Kur discloses a rechargeable battery coupled to a WITS device outer case as a bottom of the WITS device (¶¶0085, 0089-0099).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291).
Re Claim 1,
Jarrard discloses a wireless independent tracking system (WITS) device for use with a simulated weapon in a virtual reality (VR) environment (Fig 10, ¶¶0003, 0008), the WITS device comprising:
at least one tag for use in tracking a simulated weapon (gun) the WITS device is coupled to;
a coupler configured to firmly couple the WITS device to the gun (Fig 10, ¶¶0008; a box magazines removably inserted into a gun, wherein a tracker interface coupled to the box magazine, the tracker magazine including an electrical connection interface that communicates with a virtual reality computing device).
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8-11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Farrell et al. (2008/0032268).
Re Claim 2,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the coupler is one of an adhesive or screws. However, Farrell teaches the coupler is one of an adhesive or screws (¶¶0067-0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Farrell into the simulating weapon of Jarrard in order to use the most cost effective way to attach different components.
Re Claim 8,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a presence sensor located in the gun's trigger guard arranged to detect a trigger finger present in within the trigger guard in close proximity to the gun's trigger. However, Farrell teaches a presence sensor located in the gun's trigger guard arranged to detect a trigger finger present in within the trigger guard in close proximity to the gun's trigger (¶¶0025, 0048). Farrell further teaches such a configuration improves a user’s technique in using the firearm (¶¶0004-0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Farrell into the simulating weapon of Jarrard in order to improve a user’s technique in using the firearm.
Re Claim 9,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on providing a presence sensor signal when a training participant's trigger finger is detected within the trigger guard for a select or a default time period. However, Farrell teaches providing a presence sensor signal when a training participant's trigger finger is detected within the trigger guard for a select or a default time period (¶¶0025, 0048). See claim 8 for motivation.
Re Claim 10,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the presence sensor signal is used to generate immediate feedback to the gun to alert the training participant that their trigger finger is within the trigger guard. However, Farrell teaches the presence sensor signal is used to generate immediate feedback to the gun to alert the training participant that their trigger finger is within the trigger guard (¶¶0039, 0050). See claim 8 for motivation.
Re Claim 11,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the presence sensor signal is used to generate training review data for use in assessing the participant's training performance. However, Farrell teaches the presence sensor signal is used to generate training review data for use in assessing the participant's training performance (¶¶0009-0012). See claim 8 for motivation.
Re Claim 13,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a rechargeable battery. However, Farrell teaches a rechargeable battery (¶¶0050, 0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Farrell into the simulating weapon of Jarrad in order to improve the user experience by reusing the battery over and over again.
Re Claim 14,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the battery is firmly coupled to a bottom of a WITS device outer case using screws or glue. However, Farrell teaches the battery is firmly coupled to a bottom of a WITS device outer case using screws or glue (¶¶0067-0068). See claim 2 for motivation.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Patent Brain (NPL: DE102021006482).
Re Claim 3,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a vibrator within an outer case. However, Patent Brain teaches a vibrator within an outer case (¶¶0298-0301). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Patent Brain into the simulating weapon of Jarrard in order to enhance the realism.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Patent Brain (NPL: DE102021006482) and Farrell et al. (2008/0032268).
Re Claim 4,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the gun vibrates in conjunction with a warning beep when the gun is brought within a predetermined distance from a training area boundary in which the gun is used by a participant. However, Patent Brain teaches the gun vibrates when the gun is brought within a predetermined distance from a training area boundary in which the gun is used by a participant (¶¶0104-0110). Farrell teaches a warning beep (¶0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Patent Brain and Farrell in order to enhance the user experience by providing additional safety features.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Patent Brain (NPL: DE102021006482) and Farrell et al. (2008/0032268), further in view of Levesque (2004/0110565).
Re Claim 5,
Jarrard as modified by Patent Brain and Farrell discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the boundary is defined by a remote operator of a training scenario controller. However, Levesque teaches the boundary is defined by a remote operator of a training scenario controller (¶¶0019, 0035). Levesque further teaches such a configuration improves the video gaming experience (¶¶0003-0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Levesque into the virtual reality of Jarrard as modified by Patent Brain and Farrell in order to improve the video gaming experience.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Tilston et al. (2007/0218966).
Re Claim 6,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a virtual reality (VR) flashlight. However, Tilston teaches a virtual reality (VR) flashlight (¶¶0056, 0058). Tilston further teaches such a configuration can suit the player's preference or needs at various points during the game (¶0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Tilston into the game system of Jarrad in order to suit the player's preference or needs at various points during the game.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Tilston et al. (2007/0218966), further in view of Burger Sr. et al. (9546848).
Re Claim 7,
Jarrard as modified by Tilston discloses all limitations as set forth above including the VR flashlight shines in a forward direction but is silent on at least one flashlight on/off switch located on a side. However, Burger teaches at least one flashlight on/off switch located on a side (Fig 6-7, col 3, ln 45-47, col 4, ln 31-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Burger into the simulating gun of Jarrard as modified by Tilston in order to enhance the realism.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Kur et al. (2020/0408480).
Re Claim 12,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on at least one IR LED located on both the left and right sides of the gun. However, Kur teaches at least one IR LED located on both the left and right sides of the gun (¶¶0059, 0060, 0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kur into the simulating weapon of Jarrard in order to enhance the realism.
Re Claim 16,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that compensates for loss of tracking of the LEDs when they are occluded. However, Kur teaches an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that compensates for loss of tracking of the LEDs when they are occluded (¶0086).
Re Claim 18,
Jarrard discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the IMU is incorporated into or firmly coupled to a printed circuit board of the WITS device. However, Kur teaches the IMU is incorporated into or firmly coupled to a printed circuit board of the WITS device (¶¶0086-0087).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Farrell et al. (2008/0032268), further in view of Flechsig et al. (2005/0235523).
Re Claim 15,
Jarrard as modified by Farrell discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on when fully charged and powered on remains active for up to 8 hours continuously. However, Flechsig teaches when fully charged and powered on remains active for up to 8 hours continuously (¶0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Flechsig into the simulating weapon of Jarrard as modified by Farrell in order to enhance the user experience by allowing uninterrupted game playing.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrard et al. (2021/0018291) in view of Kur et al. (2020/0408480), further in view of Owens et al. (11822413).
Re Claim 17,
Jarrard as modified by Kur discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on automatically enter a sleep mode if it is not powered down for a select or default time period. However, Owens teaches automatically enter a sleep mode if it is not powered down for a select or default time period (col 5, ln 46-52, col 22, ln 63-65, col 23, ln 1-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Owens into the simulating weapon of Jarrard as modified by Kur in order to enhance the user experience by extending the battery life.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715