CTNF 18/851,041 CTNF 83395 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the display device" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, claims 12, 13, and 14 has the same issue as stated above. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites “A system” which falls within a different statutory class than independent claim 1 which it depends upon, note claim 10 recites “a server”. In addition, claim 10 fails to explicitly specify a limitation that further defines independent claim 1 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20170351331 to Weddle et al (Weddle) in view of US Pub. 20150209664 to Haseltine . Claims 1, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Weddle discloses a virtual display arrangement comprising a display device, a communication interface and a controller, wherein: the communication interface is configured to connect with a first remote-controlled vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶16), the controller is configured to receive user input and to control the first remote-controlled vehicle based on the user input along a first track (¶¶60, 74), and the display device is configured to show the first remote-controlled vehicle being navigated based on the user input along the first track (¶¶16, 60), wherein the communication interface is further configured to connect with a second virtual display arrangement controlling a second remote-controlled vehicle along the first track as a virtual vehicle along a virtual track corresponding to the first track (Fig. 5, ¶55), and wherein the controller is configured to receive information relating to navigation of the second remote-controlled vehicle along the first track (¶55), and display a graphical representation of the second remote-controlled vehicle in the display device at a position relative the first remote-controlled vehicle on the first track corresponding to a position of the second remote-controlled vehicle on the first track (Fig. 5, ¶¶55, 59-60). However, Weddle fails to explicitly disclose determine that a virtual gateway is reached ( emphasis added ). Haseltine teaches determine that a virtual gateway is reached and in response thereto cause the display device to display the first vehicle as a virtual representation in a virtual world and receive information relating to navigation of the first remote-controlled vehicle as a virtual vehicle along a virtual second track in the virtual world (Figs. 18-19, ¶¶147-154). The system of Weddle would have motivation to use the teachings of Haseltine in order to expand gameplay to new virtual worlds that resemble real-life areas in doing so would add more elements of realism to the game in hopes to provide more interesting game graphics and play. 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 the system of Weddle with the teachings of Haseltine in order to provide more interesting game graphics and play. Claim 2. Weddle in view of Haseltine teaches wherein the virtual second track corresponds to a real-world second track in a second area of the second virtual display arrangement (see Haseltine Fig. 19, ¶154). Claim 3. Weddle in view of Haseltine teaches wherein the second virtual display arrangement controls the second remote-controlled vehicle along the second track as a real-world vehicle along the second track (see Haseltine Fig. 17, ¶145). Claim 4. Weddle in view of Haseltine teaches wherein the virtual display arrangement is further configured to return the remote controlled vehicle along a return path (see Haseltine ¶153, 155 “virtual car exiting the virtual tunnel unit”). Claim 10. Weddle in view of Haseltine teaches a system comprising: a virtual display arrangement according to claim 1 and a server (see Weddle ¶54; see Haseltine ¶¶74, 172) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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. /DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/851,041 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/851,041 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/851,041 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/851,041 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights