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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 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.
Claims 2-9 recites the limitation "component." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “at least one component.” For the purposes of examination, “component” is considered to be “at least one component.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "API.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation of “at least one application specific interface (API).” For the purposes of examination, “API” is considered to be “at least one application specific interface (API).”
Claims 10-11 and 13-18 recites the limitation "processor system.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “at least one processor system.” For the purposes of examination, “processor system” is considered to be “at least one processor system.”
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.
Claim 11 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. Applicant does not add any additional limitations to the processor system or the API present in claim 11, which were not present in the claims upon which it depends. In claim 1, Applicant claims “at least one processor system of the vehicle.” Applicant claims “at least one application specific interface (API)” in claim 10. There are no further limitations present in claim 11 that are not present in claims 1 and 10. Applicant fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends. 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 § 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, 4-5, 7-8, 12-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN110368679A to Wen (hereinafter Wen).
Concerning claim 1,
Wen discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor system (0085-0087) configured to:
execute a computer game on the apparatus disposed in a vehicle (0112, wherein the terminal device is considered to be the apparatus);
present the computer game on at least one display of the apparatus (0112); and
send signals from the apparatus to at least one processor system of the vehicle to actuate at least one component of the vehicle in synchronization with execution of the computer game (0112-0113).
Concerning claim 4,
Wen discloses the component comprises a brake actuator (0112-0113).
Concerning claim 5,
Wen discloses the component comprises a steering wheel (0112-0113).
Concerning claim 7,
Wen discloses the component comprises a vehicle seat (0212, 0224-0227).
Concerning claim 8,
Wen discloses the component comprises a vehicle ventilation system (0212, 0215-0220).
Concerning claim 13,
Wen discloses the processor system is configured to: responsive to an interlock being satisfied, enable actuation of at least one component of the vehicle in synchronization with execution of the computer game on the device (0160-0163, 0183); and
responsive to the interlock not being satisfied, not enable actuation of at least one component of the vehicle in synchronization with execution of the computer game on the device (0160-0163, 0183).
Concerning claims 12, and 19-20, see the rejection of claim 1.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of CN110339560A to Wen (hereinafter Wen ‘560).
Concerning claim 2,
Wen does not clearly disclose the component comprises headlights of the vehicle.
Wen ‘560 teaches the component comprises headlights of the vehicle (0126-0129, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the vehicle’s lights include the headlights of the car).
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 car based gaming system of Wen with the car based gaming system of Wen ‘560, as both concern the controlling of different car components in during vehicle based gaming. Incorporating the light based gaming control of Wen ‘560 with the gaming control of Wen would allow for a more multifaceted, enjoyable, and immersive gaming experience for the player.
Concerning claim 9,
Wen does not clearly disclose the component comprises interior lighting of the vehicle.
Wen ‘560 teaches the component comprises interior lighting of the vehicle (0126-0129).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2022/0047951 A1 to Mehdi et al. (hereinafter Mehdi).
Concerning claim 3,
Wen does not clearly disclose the component comprises a vehicle horn.
Mehdi teaches the component comprises a vehicle horn (0037).
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 car based gaming system of Wen with the car based gaming system of Mehdi, as both concern the controlling of different car components in during vehicle based gaming. Incorporating the horn gaming integration of Mehdi with the gaming control of Wen would allow for a more multifaceted, enjoyable, and immersive gaming experience for the player, allowing for greater player expression.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2025/0058226 A1 to Nowakowski et al. (hereinafter Nowakowski).
Concerning claim 10,
Wen discloses the processor system of the vehicle controls the at least one component in response to the signals (0085-0087, 0112-0113).
Wen does not clearly disclose the signals are provided to at least one application specific interface (API) executable by the processor system of the vehicle.
Nowakowski teaches the signals are provided to at least one application specific interface (API) executable by the processor system of the vehicle (0028, 0036, 0100).
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 car based gaming system of Wen with the car based gaming system of Nowakowski, as both concern the vehicle based gaming. Incorporating the API of Nowakowski with the gaming control of Wen would allow for greater interconnectivity between the various components of the car, allowing for more reliable and standard functionality.
Concerning claim 11, see the rejection of claim 10.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2023/0331056 A1 to Birch (hereinafter Birch).
Concerning claim 6,
Wen discloses the component comprises a suspension of a car (0230).
Wen does not explicitly disclose a shock absorber.
Birch teaches that a car’s suspension commonly includes a shock absorber (0002).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suspension of a car shown in Wen to include a shock absorber as shown in Birch to dampen vibration and improve performance of the system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2006/0272442 A1 to Shimizu (hereinafter Shimizu).
Concerning claim 14,
Wen discloses the interlock comprises being in park (0160-0163, 0183).
Wen does not explicitly disclose a vehicle shift lever.
Shimizu teaches a vehicle shift lever is commonly used as a parking mechanism (0002-0005).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the parking of a car shown in Wen to include a lever mechanism as shown in Shimizu to allow for manual manipulation and control of the car’s gear.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2010/0302022 A1 to Saban (hereinafter Saban).
Concerning claim 15,
Wen does not disclose the interlock comprises a vehicle ignition being off.
Saban teaches the interlock comprises a vehicle ignition being off (0069, Figure 1).
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 gaming restriction control system of Wen with the safety system of Saban, as both concern the restriction of the operation of the vehicle. Incorporating the safety system of Saban with the gaming control of Wen would allow for a more multifaceted security system that would more effectively ensure the passenger’s safety.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2020/0139251 A1 to Nguyen (hereinafter Nguyen).
Concerning claim 16,
Wen does not disclose the interlock is based on a location of the vehicle.
Nguyen teaches the interlock is based on a location of the vehicle (0019, 0032).
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 gaming restriction control system of Wen with the safety system of Nguyen, as both concern the restriction of the operation of the vehicle. Incorporating the safety system of Nguyen with the gaming control of Wen would allow for a more multifaceted security system that would more effectively ensure the passenger’s safety.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2011/0021213 A1 to Carr (hereinafter Carr).
Concerning claim 17,
Wen does not disclose the interlock is based on a relative location of the device within the vehicle.
Carr teaches the interlock is based on a relative location of the device within the vehicle (element 102) (0017, 0019-0020, 0022, Figure 1A-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 gaming restriction control system of Wen with the safety system of Carr, as both concern the restriction of the operation of the vehicle. Incorporating the safety system of Carr with the gaming control of Wen would allow for a more multifaceted security system that would more effectively ensure the passenger’s safety.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110368679A to Wen in view of US Publication 2005/0285445 A1 to Wruck et al. (hereinafter Wruck).
Concerning claim 18,
Wen does not disclose the processor system is configured to: disable actuation of the at least one component of the vehicle in synchronization with execution of the computer game on the device responsive to a voltage of a vehicle battery having a first value.
Wruck teaches the processor system is configured to: disable actuation of the at least one component of the vehicle in synchronization with execution of the computer game on the device responsive to a voltage of a vehicle battery having a first value (0037-0040, Figure 2, wherein a vehicle based gaming system would be considered a “nonessential” electrical system, which is shut off at a pre-selected value).
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 vehicle electrical control system of Wen with the battery management system of Wruck, as both concern electronic systems of a vehicle. Incorporating the battery management system of Wruck with the gaming control of Wen would allow for a vehicle that is more efficient in the case of low battery, and would shut off nonessential systems (such as the gaming system), allowing for a lower likelihood of electrical vehicle failure.
Conclusion
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