DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to the RCE filed 08/05/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are pending in the application. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “the movement mechanism moves” in line 24, needs to be changed to “wherein the movement mechanism moves”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the term “and” in line 13, needs to be removed, and
the phrase “each of the holds” in line 20, needs to be changed to “wherein each of the holds”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 is:
I) “tilt mechanism which supports the board such that the board is tiltable” in claim 2, wherein “mechanism” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language of “tilt/which supports the board such that the board is tiltable” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
I) “tilt mechanism”: has been considered to have the corresponding structure of a servomotor and a gear (see ¶ [0021] of the specification) and equivalents thereof.
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
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200137734 A, a copy of translation of this document with a label of “Classic Translation” has been provided with this Office Action. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation copy) in view of Seo (KR 20160132564 A, a copy of a translation of this document has previously been provided. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation) and Wu (CN112337068A, a copy of a translation of this document has been provided with this Office Action. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a climbing experience system comprising an interface apparatus (Fig. 1) and a simulation apparatus (i.e., 700, Fig. 8),
the interface apparatus configured to provide a user with a climbing experience in a virtual space, the interface apparatus comprising:
a board (i.e., 200) to which holds (500/530) are attached (Fig. 1), the user having to put a hand or a foot of the user at each of the holds (¶ [13], [15] and [25]);
a movement mechanism (i.e., belt 100) configured to move positions of the holds on the board (¶ [13], [15], and [78]-[81]);
detection sensors, including detection sensors (i.e., 610, 620) that detect a position of the person/detect a position of the user’s foot and hand (¶ [92]-[99], [108] and [115]); and
an input and output section that provides a signal indicative of the force and the moment to a simulation apparatus (i.e., 700) configured to generate the virtual space and that acquires, from the simulation apparatus, a control signal for controlling the movement mechanism so as to move the holds (¶ [13], [24], [102]-[108], and [113]-[114]), wherein the simulation apparatus
determines the positions of the holds on the board on a basis of a position of the user in the virtual space (¶ [102]-[107]), and
carries out a process of automatically changing a challenge level of the climbing experience in an isolated climbing experience in accordance with a skill level of the user (¶ [114] recites: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, it is possible not only to set it through a UI, but also to automatically configure the operation of the climbing device and the display of virtual content in real time based on the user’s ability information and climbing situation monitoring information, so that the experience can be made possible by enabling difficulty levels”), please note that the experiencer’s ability information is considered a skill level, and that in another (isolated) climbing experience (another climbing time or trial), the difficulty level/challenge level of the climbing experience can be automatically changed based at least in part on the skill level/ability information of the experiencer/user), and
the movement mechanism moves each of the holds to the positions of the holds that have been determined by the simulation apparatus (¶ [14], [89], [102], [107]).
Kim teaches that various sensors can be arranged in the climbing device including a sensor for detecting a foot, a sensor for detecting a hand, etc., (¶ [115]). However, Kim is silent about force sensors which are provided to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) the holds and (ii) gloves and shoes worn by the user, and each detect a force and a moment that are applied from the user to a corresponding one of the holds or that are applied from each of the holds to the user; wherein the simulation apparatus determines a posture of the user which has been specified by the force and the moment.
Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches an interface apparatus configured to provide a user with a climbing experience, comprising: a board (i.e., 600) to which holds are attached (Figs. 8-9), the user being to put a hand or a foot of the user at each of the one or more holds (Figs. 8-9, ¶ [32], [43]); force sensors (i.e., 220, ¶ [30]-[31]) which are provided to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) holds (i.e., 200, ¶ [30]) and (ii) gloves and shoes worn by the user and which each detect a force and a moment that are applied from the user to a corresponding one of the holds or that are applied from each of the holds to the user (¶ [5]-[6], [8], [10]-[12], [15], [36]-[38], [67], [75]); and an input and output section that provides a signal indicative of the force and the moment to a control unit (¶ [15]-[16], [19], [59]-[60], [63]-[64], [75], please note that upon modification of Kim’s invention with features of Seo, such signal would be provided to the simulation apparatus), wherein the control unit determines a posture of the user which has been specified by the force and the moment (¶ [59]-[60], [66]-[67], [75], [84]-[86], [94]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention with force sensors which are provided to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) the holds and (ii) gloves and shoes worn by the user, and each detect a force and a moment that are applied from the user to a corresponding one of the holds or that are applied from each of the holds to the user, and providing a signal indicative of the force and the moment, wherein the simulation unit (control unit) determines a posture of the user which has been specified by the force and the moment as taught by Seo in order to provide for a more accurate determination of the user’s posture and gripping actions and have such posture and gripping actions corrected when needed, to enable the user improve upon his/her performance and prevent him/her from potential injuries.
Kim in view of Seo is silent about the movement mechanism configured to be achieved with use of a rail and the movement mechanism moves each of the holds, by sliding the holds on the rail.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a climbing experience system comprising: a board (i.e., 1) to which holds (support components 21-24) are attached, the user (3) having to put a hand or a foot of the user at each of the holds (Figs. 1-3), and a movement mechanism configured to move positions of the holds on the board (Figs. 4-5, ¶ [38], [89]), and the movement mechanism configured to be achieved with use of a rail (236, ¶ [38], [89]), the movement mechanism moves each of the holds, by sliding the holds on the rail, to the positions of the holds that have been determined (Figs. 4-5, ¶ [38], [68]-[69], [77], [89], Wu teaches that the movement mechanism is configured to be achieved with use of a rail (Fig. 4) or a belt (Figs. 6-7), and that moving positions of the holds can be controlled by a software system according to settings (¶ [77]). Upon modifying Kim’s invention in view of Seo with the movement mechanism of Wu, the movement mechanism would move the holds, by sliding the holds on the rail, to the position of the holds that have been determined by the simulation apparatus).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention in view of Seo with the movement mechanism configured to be achieved with use of a rail and the movement mechanism moves each of the holds, by sliding the holds on the rail as taught by Wu in order to provide for an interface apparatus that is more compact and can be used/installed in small spaces.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Seo and Wu teaches the system further comprising a tilt mechanism (Kim: i.e., 400 (having a rotation means 420, and a second driving motor 430), (as interpreted under 112(f), see above for details)) which supports the board such that the board is tiltable (Kim: Fig. 2, ¶ [64]-[65] and [70]-[74]), and the input and output section acquiring, from the simulation apparatus, a control signal for controlling the tilt mechanism so as to tilt the board (Kim: ¶ [73], [109] and [115]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Seo and Wu teaches wherein:
a position of at least part of each of the holds is switchable, in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the board, between a first position in which the user is able to put the hand or the foot of the user at the at least part and a second position which is closer to the surface of the board than the first position is (Kim: Figs. 5-7, ¶ [78]-[81] and [88]-[89]; Wu: using a horizontal telescopic motion mechanism, ¶ [24], [35], [85]-[86]), each of the holds is configured to: when at least part thereof is in the first position and the hand or the foot of the user is put at the at least part, move in a direction opposite to a direction in which the user progresses in the climbing experience in the virtual space (Kim: Fig. 7, the holds that are in the first position, on the front side of the board, to be contacted by the hand or foot of the user, move in the downward direction as the user climbs in the upward direction; Wu: ¶ [12]-[13], [15]-[16], any support component/hold that is supporting a user’s hand or foot, moves in the downward direction), and when the at least part is in the second position and the hand or the foot of the user is not put at the at least part, move in the direction in which the user progresses (Kim: Fig. 7, the holds that are already in a retracted state/second position or are retracted into the second position, on the back side/surface of the board, move upward which is the direction in which the user progresses. Please note that as much as applicant has shown each of the holds being configured to when the at least part is in the second position and the hand or the foot of the user is not put at the at least part, move in the direction in which the user progresses, Kim is also showing such; Wu: ¶ [11], [13]-[14], [16], [43], [77], any support/hold that is not supporting a user’s hand or foot, moves upwards, by sliding on the rail), and each of the holds in the second position moves in the direction in which the user progresses by sliding on the rail (Wu: ¶ [11], [13]-[14], [16], [38], [43], [77], [89], any support/hold that is not supporting a user’s hand or foot, moves upwards, by sliding on the rail).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Seo and Wu teaches further comprising a head mounted display which displays an image that represents the virtual space and that has been acquired from the simulation apparatus (Kim: ¶ [89], [101], [103] and [106]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seo and Wu as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Ou (CN 106693334A, a copy of a translation of this document has previously been provided. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation).
Kim in view of Seo and Wu is silent about wherein the simulation apparatus generates an image representing the virtual space that includes part or whole of a body of the user in the posture specified and provides the image to the head mounted display, and wherein in a case where the simulation apparatus, with reference to information which has been provided by the interface apparatus, determines that a predetermined condition has been satisfied, the simulation apparatus generates an image in which the user has fallen from a wall surface for the climbing experience in the virtual space and provides the image to the head mounted display.
Regarding claim 6, Ou teaches a climbing experience system, wherein a simulation apparatus generates an image representing a virtual space that includes part or whole of a body of a user (as a character) in a posture specified and provides the image to a head mounted display (¶ [16]-[17], [38]-[39]).
Regarding claim 8, Ou teaches wherein in a case where the simulation apparatus, with reference to information which has been provided by an interface apparatus with holds (Fig. 1), determines that a predetermined condition has been satisfied (i.e., a height of the center of gravity of the user’s body being higher than a preset critical height and the user boarding a ladder or suspension (9), is considered a predetermined condition being satisfied), the simulation apparatus generates an image in which the user has fallen from a wall surface for the climbing experience in the virtual space (i.e., image of downhill, bungee jumping, parachuting or gliding landscape) and provides the image to the head mounted display (¶ [17]-[18], [36]-[40]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention in view of Seo and Wu wherein the simulation apparatus generates an image representing the virtual space that includes part or whole of a body of the user in the posture specified and provides the image to the head mounted display, and wherein in a case where the simulation apparatus, with reference to information which has been provided by the interface apparatus, determines that a predetermined condition has been satisfied, the simulation apparatus generates an image in which the user has fallen from a wall surface for the climbing experience in the virtual space and provides the image to the head mounted display as taught by Ou in order to inform the user of his/her posture while climbing and improve upon such posture, and to provide for a more user interactive system that keeps the user entertained and reduce boredom.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seo and Wu as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Tamaoki et al. (US 2017/0277260 A1).
Kim in view of Seo and Wu is silent about wherein the simulation apparatus generates an image representing the virtual space that includes part or whole of a body of the user in the posture specified and provides the image to the head mounted display.
Regarding claim 6, Tamaoki teaches a system, wherein a simulation apparatus generates an image representing a virtual space that includes part or whole body of the user (as an avatar) in a posture specified and provides the image to a head mounted display (20, ¶ [83], [92], [291]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention in view of Seo and Wu wherein the simulation apparatus generates an image representing the virtual space that includes part or whole of a body of the user in the posture specified and provides the image to the head mounted display as taught by Tamaoki in order to inform the user of his/her posture while climbing and improve upon such posture while keeping the user entertained.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seo and Wu as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Sanchez Vives et al. (US 2018/0151258 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Sanchez”).
Kim in view of Seo and Wu is silent about wherein the head mounted display emits light in a predetermined direction; and the interface apparatus includes a plurality of photodetectors each configured to detect light which has been emitted from the head mounted display and provides, via the input and output section, the simulation apparatus with information indicative of a photodetector that has detected the light, as information for specifying an orientation of the head mounted display.
Regarding claim 7, Sanchez teaches a system comprising: a head mounted display (25), and a simulation apparatus (21), a motion sensing unit (24) comprising one or more sensors, including emitters that each emit light in a predetermined direction and receivers/photodetectors that each detect light that has been emitted from one of the emitters, that are configured to detect motion/orientation of the head mounted display (¶ [23]) and provide, via an input/output section, the simulation apparatus with information indicative of one or more receiver(s)/photodetector(s) that detected the light, as information for specifying the orientation of the head mounted display (Fig. 1, ¶ [12], [22]-[23], [55], in some examples, the sensors may comprise accelerometers attached to, integrated in or coupled with the head mounted display. In other examples, the sensors may comprise cameras. In yet further examples, further sensors involving e.g. emitters and receivers, from which the position and orientation of the subject or the head mounted display may be derived from triangulation. One or more sensors comprised in a motion sensing input device 24 which may in some example be located on a head mounted display). Although Sanchez does not specify the emitter(s) being on the head mounted display and the receivers/photodetectors being on an interface apparatus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the emitter(s) on the head mounted display and the receivers/photodetectors on an interface apparatus/another surface, since such would involve rearranging parts which is considered to be held within one ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, upon modification of Kim’s invention in view of Seo and Wu with features of Sanchez, the receivers/photodetectors can be arranged on the interface apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention in view of Seo and Wu wherein the head mounted display emits light in a predetermined direction and a plurality of photodetectors each configured to detect light which has been emitted from the head mounted display and provide, via the input and output section, the simulation apparatus with information indicative of a photodetector that has detected the light, as information for specifying an orientation of the head mounted display as taught by Sanchez in order to display appropriate images according to the point of view of the user and therefore provide the user with a more immersive climbing experience.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seo and Wu as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Koo (KR 102301954 B1, a copy of a translation of this document has previously been provided. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation).
Kim in view of Seo and Wu teaches the simulation apparatus carries out the process of automatically chancing the challenge level of the climbing experience (Kim: ¶ [114]). Kim in view of Seo and Wu is silent about wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of controlling the tilt mechanism to change an angle between the board and a floor surface, wherein a position of at least part of each of the holds in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the board is switchable among multiple levels, and the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing the position of at least part of each of the holds in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the board, and the system further comprising an air blower for blowing wind toward the user in the climbing experience, wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing speed of the wind by the air blower.
Regarding claim 9, Koo teaches a climbing experience system comprising an interface apparatus and a simulation apparatus, the interface apparatus configured to provide a user with a climbing experience in a virtual space (¶ [1], [10]), the interface apparatus comprising: a board (i.e., tread wall 400 (having panels 480)) to which holds (600 with 610) are attached (Figs. 1, 3, 7-9, ¶ [19]), the user having to put a hand or a foot of the user at each of the holds (Figs. 15-16, ¶ [13], [19]); a movement mechanism/transmission mechanism (i.e., chain 470 with sprocket 466, ¶ [16], [22]) configured to move positions of the holds on the board (¶ [16], [19], [22]); force sensors (load cell 620) which are provided to the holds, and each detect a force and a moment that are applied from the user to a corresponding one of the holds or that are applied from each of the holds to the user (¶ [19]), an input and output section that provides a signal indicative of the force and the moment to a simulation apparatus configured to generate the virtual space and that acquires, from the simulation apparatus, a control signal for controlling the movement mechanism so as to move the holds (¶ [1], [24]-[25], [27]), and a tilt mechanism/an angle adjustment unit (300) which supports the board such that the board is tiltable (Fig. 3, ¶ [13], [24], [41]), the input and output section acquiring, from the simulation apparatus, a control signal for controlling the tilt mechanism so as to tilt the board (¶ [13], [24], [103], [109]), wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of controlling the tilt mechanism to change an angle between the board and a floor surface (¶ [1], [10], [13], [24]-[25], [47], [109]).
Regarding claim 10, Koo teaches wherein a position of at least part of each of the holds in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the board is switchable among multiple levels (Figs. 12-13, ¶ [12], [19], [26], [70], the protrusion length of the holds can be changed), and the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing the position of at least part of each of the holds in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the board (¶ [1], [10], [13], [89]-[91], [100], [102]-[110]).
Regarding claim 11, Koo teaches the system further comprising an air blower (700/740) for blowing wind toward the user in the climbing experience (¶ [14], [25], [72]-[75]), wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing speed of the wind by the air blower (¶ [24]-[25], [75], outputting content of various locations and terrain features through an HMD (10) and a beam projector (20), and by linking an angle adjustment unit (300) and a speed adjustment unit (500) according to the climbing difficulty level based on the content situation to adjust the rotation angle of the tread wall (400) and the rotation speed of the wall panel (480), thereby giving the feeling that actual rock climbing is taking place, and providing wind suitable for the content situation to a user climbing the wall panel (480) through a blower unit (700), thereby providing the effect of being able to experience the feeling of outdoor rock climbing even indoors. The wind speed and direction, provided by the blower fan (740) of the blower unit (which is connected to the control device), can be automatically adjusted in conjunction with the content situation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention in view of Seo and Wu wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of controlling the tilt mechanism to change an angle between the board and a floor surface, wherein a position of at least part of each of the holds in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the board is switchable among multiple levels, and the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing the position of at least part of each of the holds in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the board, and the system further comprising an air blower for blowing wind toward the user in the climbing experience, wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing speed of the wind by the air blower, as taught by Koo in order to provide a more realistic experience for the user and to also enable various user’s exercise according to their skill levels and improve upon their performance while training for specific sporting/climbing event.
Claims 9-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seo and Wu as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Droemmer (WO 8909635A2, a copy of a translation of this document has previously been provided. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation).
Kim in view of Seo and Wu teaches the simulation apparatus carries out the process of automatically chancing the challenge level of the climbing experience (Kim: ¶ [114]). Kim in view of Seo and Wu is silent about wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of controlling the tilt mechanism to change an angle between the board and a floor surface, wherein a position of at least part of each of the holds in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the board is switchable among multiple levels, and the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing the position of at least part of each of the holds in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the board.
Regarding claim 9, Droemmer teaches a climbing experience system comprising an interface apparatus and a simulation apparatus (Figs. 1, 3-5 and 7), wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as a process of automatically changing a challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of controlling a tilt mechanism to change an angle between the board and a floor surface (¶ [8], [14]-[15], [24], [42], [61]-[64]).
Regarding claim 10, Droemmer teaches wherein a position of at least part of each of holds (128, 130, 132) in a direction perpendicular to the surface (114) of a board (102) is switchable among multiple levels (Fig. 10, ¶ [15], [24], [30]-[31], [54]), and the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing the position of at least part of each of the holds in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the board (Fig. 10, ¶ [15], [24], [30], [42], [54]-[55], [61]-[64]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention in view of Seo and Wu wherein the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of controlling the tilt mechanism to change an angle between the board and a floor surface, wherein a position of at least part of each of the holds in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the board is switchable among multiple levels, and the simulation apparatus carries out, as the process of automatically changing the challenge level of the climbing experience, a process of changing the position of at least part of each of the holds in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the board as taught by Droemmer in order to provide a more realistic experience for the user and to also enable various user’s exercise according to their skill levels and improve upon their performance while training for specific sporting/climbing event.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In response applicant’s arguments stating that the cited paragraph [108] of Kim does not teach a simulation apparatus that carries out a process of automatically changing a challenge level of the climbing experience in an isolated climbing experience in accordance with a skill level of the user, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. The Final rejection (dated 06/03/2026) recites ¶ [108] with respect to the translation copy of Kim that was provided with the Non-Final rejection (dated 10/31/2025). For the purposes of clarity only, another translation of Kim’s document, from Classic Espacenet (labeled “Classic Translation”), was provided with the Final rejection and paragraph [114] of such translation (“Classic Translation”) was cited as the pertinent portion for teaching the argued limitations. The recited ¶ [108] Applicant’s remarks recites ¶ [108] of the “Classic Translation” which do not teach the argued limitation of the claim. However, ¶ [114] is the correct paragraph of the “Classic Translation” that was recited for teaching the argued limitation of the claim. The Final rejection (dated 06/03/2026), under the Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103, includes the following heading: “Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200137734 A, a copy of a translation of this document (from EPO Espacenet Search) has been previously provided. For purposes of (further) clarity Only, another translation of this document (from EPO Espacenet Classic Search) has been provided with this Office Action (hereinafter referred to as “Classic Translation”). The cited paragraphs are with respect to both copies of translation) in view of Seo (KR 20160132564 A, a copy of a translation of this document has been previously provided. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation)”, and with respect to the argued limitations recites: “(¶ [108] recites: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, not only can be set through the UI, but the motion of the climbing device and the display of virtual content are linked in real time according to the experiencer's ability information and the climbing situation monitoring information, and the experience by difficulty level is It is possible to be automatically set to be possible”, please note that the experiencer’s ability information is considered a skill level, and that in another (isolated) climbing experience (another climbing time or trial), the difficulty level/challenge level of the climbing experience can be automatically changed based at least in part on the skill level/ability information of the experiencer/user, (also ¶ [114] of “Classic Translation” recites: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, it is possible not only to set it through a UI, but also to automatically configure the operation of the climbing device and the display of virtual content in real time based on the user’s ability information and climbing situation monitoring information, so that the experience can be made possible by enabling difficulty levels”))”. As can be seen from above, ¶ [114] of “Classic Translation” was recited in the Final rejection (dated 06/03/2026).
This Office Action relies on the “Classic Translation” of Kim for teaching various limitations. Such “Classic Translation” has also been provided with this Office Action. As stated above, Kim in ¶ [114] (of the “Classic Translation” provided) recites: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, it is possible not only to set it through a UI, but also to automatically configure the operation of the climbing device and the display of virtual content in real time based on the user’s ability information and climbing situation monitoring information, so that the experience can be made possible by enabling difficulty levels”. Please note that the experiencer’s ability information is considered a skill level, and that in another (isolated) climbing experience (another climbing time or trial), the difficulty level/challenge level of the climbing experience can be automatically changed based at least in part on the skill level/ability information of the experiencer/user.
In respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the movement mechanism moving each of the holds, by sliding the holds on the rail, to the positions determined by the simulation apparatus, as recited in claim 1, and stating that Kim fails to disclose any such rail on which the holds are slid, rather Kim teaches the “holds” to be rotated about a shaft on a belt, the Examiner would like to mention that Kim has not been relied upon for teaching the movement mechanism moving each of the holds, by sliding the holds on a rail. Rather, Wu has been relied upon for teaching such limitation. Kim teaches the movement mechanism moving each of the holds to the positions determined by the simulation apparatus. Kim’s movement mechanism configured to be achieved with use of a belt. Wu, however, teaches a movement mechanism configured to move positions of the holds/support components on the board, and the movement mechanism configured to be achieved with use of a rail or a belt. Wu teaches that the movement mechanism moves each of the holds/support components, by sliding the holds on the rail, to various predetermined positions (see above for details). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s invention in view of Seo with the movement mechanism configured to be achieved with use of a rail and the movement mechanism moves each of the holds, by sliding the holds on the rail as taught by Wu in order to provide for an interface apparatus that is more compact and can be used/installed in small spaces.
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding Seo failing to teach the above argued limitation are moot, as Seo has not been relied upon for teaching such limitations (see above for details).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Kim or Seo), 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).
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding the dependent claims are also moot in view of the above provided explanation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights