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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/25/2026, under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive (Remarks, 6/25/2026, pg. 4-5). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 concerning claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (Remarks, 6/25/2026, pg. 5-7).
Applicant states the following: “There is no suggestion about providing an "aerial image" in Sutton, which does not project one and does not mention any hardware with the capability to project one. The rejection is improper in equating the AR image to an aerial image, as this is inconsistent with the ordinary technical understanding of an aerial image display by those of ordinary skill in the art.” It is respectfully submitted that, under the current language in claim 1, an aerial imaging system which projects an aerial image in the air can be an augmented reality (AR) system, as an AR system which displays virtual items in the real world satisfies the limitations as claimed.
Applicant states the following: “"Inertia" is a law of motion: the natural tendency of objects in motion to stay in motion and objects at rest to stay at rest, unless a force causes its velocity to change. On the other hand, a "moment of inertia" is a property specific to a body, namely the tendency of a body to resist angular acceleration, which takes into account the mass of the object and the distribution of that mass relative to the axis of rotation. The two are entirely different terms in physics, and Bell-Geddes discussing that inertia exists is not enough to meet what is provided in the claims.” It is respectfully submitted that Bell-Geddes simulates the physics of the chain using a physics engine to simulate physical properties such as inertia. A person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a physics engine that simulates inertia would simulate the different types of inertia.
For the above reason, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2024/0096030 A1 to Sutton (hereinafter Sutton) in view of US Publication 2024/0331246 A1 to Bell-Geddes et al. (hereinafter Bell-Geddes).
Concerning claim 1,
Sutton discloses a game program to be executed by a computer included in an aerial image display device, comprising: an aerial imaging system that projects an aerial image in the air, and a motion sensor that detects motion of a hand of a user in the vicinity of the aerial image projected by the aerial imaging system and transmits the detection results to the computer (0004, 0052, 0062, wherein augmented reality is considered to be an aerial imaging system and a camera is considered to be a motion sensor),
wherein when executed the game program causes the computer to perform: a step of controlling the aerial imaging system to project an operation target in the air as an aerial image (0034, 0052, Figure 4, wherein the virtual trophy is considered to be an operation target);
a step of receiving the motion of the hand of the user trying to directly support and keep the operation target from falling from the hand (0034, 0052, Figure 4, picking up and interacting with the virtual trophy is considered to meet the limitation as claimed); and
a step of moving the operation target projected by the aerial imaging system in accordance with interaction between the operation target and the hand of the user (0034, 0052, Figure 4),
Sutton does not clearly disclose wherein a mass, a center of gravity and a moment of inertia are assigned to the operation target, and wherein the influence of gravity and the interaction is reflected in the motion of the operation target based on the mass, center of gravity and moment of inertia (0034, 0052, Figure 4).
Bell-Geddes teaches wherein a mass, a center of gravity and a moment of inertia are assigned to the operation target, and wherein the influence of gravity and the interaction is reflected in the motion of the operation target based on the mass, center of gravity and moment of inertia (0017, 0027, 0030, 0043, Figure 3A-B).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the object physics in Bell-Geddes with the virtual object interaction system of Sutton as both concern hand-based interaction of virtual objects. Incorporating the additional physics of Bell-Geddes into the virtual object interaction system of Sutton would allow for the virtual object to behave more realistically.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2024/0096030 A1 to Sutton in view of US Publication 2024/0331246 A1 to Bell-Geddes et al. and further in view of JP 2011/175297 A to Fujishima et al. (hereinafter Fujishima).
Concerning claim 3,
Sutton discloses a display device (0029, 0034, 0061).
Sutton does not clearly disclose the aerial imaging system includes a display device that displays the operation target, and an optical plate whose incident surface faces the display device at an angle, and wherein an image displayed on the display device is retro-transmitted through the optical plate to project the aerial image of the operation target.
Fujishima teaches the aerial imaging system includes a display device that displays the operation target, and an optical plate whose incident surface faces the display device at an angle, and wherein an image displayed on the display device is retro-transmitted through the optical plate to project the aerial image of the operation target (0031-0033, 0045, as broadly stated, the limitation for the incident surface to face the display device at an angle can constitute any angle).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display mechanism in Fujishima with the virtual object interaction system of Sutton as both systems deal with the displays for gaming. Incorporating the display system of Fujishima into the virtual object interaction system of Sutton would allow for a unique and aesthetic user experience.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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 at (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 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights