DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection discussed below.
With respect to the last office action, Applicant amends claims, discusses the claims limitations, the prior art of record (PAR or LOYAL), the office action and further argues that the PAR do not meet the amended claims limitations (see Applicant’s Remarks)
In response, Examiner notes Applicant’s arguments, however, the PAR still meet amended claims limitations for these reasons: the PAR further discloses that: user(s) or the status of the vehicle, i.e., stationary and/or moving and other object and/or device(s) “various sessors at various location or around the environment, besides the ones located on the vehicle”; various sensors may be located in the environment or sensors in other locations in addition to those on the vehicle, that emit a predetermined frequency and/or light-emission patterns (muzzle blast, optical flash, sound and other suitable event) ; and the system dynamically updates the map (graphical indicators moves relative to the vehicle with predetermined streams, videos, images, etc.) based on the status of the vehicle, i.e., stationary and/or moving and other object and/or device(s) around the environment; which meets the amended claim limitations: wherein each detected end device (gunshot or gunfire from specific location, human movement and other environment or object(s) movement from other location, etc.) is initialized by outputting at least one of a unique predetermined tonal frequency or light-emission pattern for device-specific identification within the gaming station, and wherein the virtual representation is positioned on the digital canvas according to a determined physical location of the detected end device relative to a user seating position (stationary and/or moving EDE or vehicle) in the gaming station derived from the video stream (see Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38, Col.9, line 8-Col.10, line 65 and Col.11, line 8-Col.13, line 23), as discussed below. Hence the amendments do not overcome the PAR. Furthermore, based on Applicant’s remarks, the double -patenting rejection is proper and further discussed below. The amendments of the claims, necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection. This office action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LOYAL et al (8,125,334).
As to claims 1-5, LOYAL discloses a system for an image-captured initialization of an array of devices (figs.1-13, Event Detection Environment “EDE”: Mobile/Stationary Platform, Col.1, line 65-Col.2, line 41; Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38 and Col.14, lines 24-33), comprising:
a processor; a memory element with instructions coupled to the processor (figs.2-13), when implemented, configures the processor to:
receive (EDE) a video stream featuring a plurality of end devices (figs.1-13, EDE receives video streams from cameras: light, infrared, etc.; microphone, etc. and/or environmental devices, buildings, trees, etc.) in a gaming station via a streaming module, wherein the end device renders at least one of a lighting, haptic, or air-blowing effect from a specific location within the gaming station (sensors attached to specific location for capturing and streaming events to the processor, (Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38, Col.9, line 8-Col.10, line 65, Col.11, line 8-Col.13, line 23 and Col.14, lines 24-33);
detect (EDE) the plurality of end devices using vision processing of at least a frame of the gaming station stream; and position a virtual representation of the detected end devices on a digital canvas representing a user's physical space based on a tonal frequency-dependent light-emission from a frequency-defined end device (Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38, Col.9, line 8-Col.10, line 65 and Col.11, line 8-Col.13, line 23), EDE detects sound effects from buildings within a specific location, gunshot or gunfire from specific location, human movement and other movement from other location, etc., and using the specific cameras, sensors, etc., generates image or map with specific illustrations, address location, etc., of each event; present portion of video data streams within the display system; shooter movements and/or locations may also be displayed, that enables the operator or game player to location; wherein the video stream is from any video-capture device of at least a single perspective of the user's game station; wherein the plurality of end devices are configured in an array rendering an array effect during a user experience; wherein the end device is at least one of a device with a vibro-tactile or light emitting function and wherein the end devices with light-emitting function are at least one of a light-emitting gaming device, including a display/monitor, mouse, game controller, head-set, computing tower, game console, any portion and/or component of a computing tower, light-strip, individual bulb or diode in a lighting device (Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38, Col.9, line 8-Col.10, line 65 and Col.11, line 8-Col.13, line 23), generates image: various environmental objects: trees, persons, cars, devices, buildings, etc., or map with specific illustrations, address location, etc., of each event; present portion of video data streams within the display system; shooter(s) movements and/or locations may also be displayed, that enables the operator or game player to location
wherein each detected end device (gunshot or gunfire from specific location, human movement and other environment or object(s) movement from other location, etc.) is initialized by outputting at least one of a unique predetermined tonal frequency or light-emission pattern for device-specific identification within the gaming station, and wherein the virtual representation is positioned on the digital canvas according to a determined physical location of the detected end device relative to a user seating position (stationary and/or moving EDE or vehicle) in the gaming station derived from the video stream (Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38, Col.9, line 8-Col.10, line 65 and Col.11, line 8-Col.13, line 23), various sensors may be located in the environment or sensors in other locations in addition to those on the vehicle, that emit a predetermined frequency and/or light-emission patterns (muzzle blast, optical flash, sound and other suitable event) ; and the system dynamically updates the map (graphical indicators moves relative to the vehicle with predetermined streams, videos, images, etc.) based on the status of the vehicle, i.e., stationary and/or moving and other object and/or device(s) around the environment.
As to claims 6-7, LOYAL further discloses wherein positioning the end device is validated by playing a predetermined tonal frequency associated with a respective end device for light confirmation of the end device; wherein positioning the end device is validated by playing a predetermined plurality of tonal frequencies associated with a respective end device for light confirmation of the end device (Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38, Col.9, line 8-Col.10, line 65 and Col.11, line 8-Col.13, line 23), real-time graphical indicators with enhancements and different portions of the various streams to illustration the environment events associated with the environmental objects.
As to claims 8-9, LOYAL further discloses wherein the vision processing is achieved by at least one of a color thresholding, blob detection, or object detection technique and a visual preview of the array effects based on variable virtual positioning of devices on the digital canvas (000000), directing sensors to source of events (Col.3, line 56-Col.5, line 38, Col.9, line 8-Col.10, line 65 and Col.11, line 8-Col.13, line 23), not remarks in claims 1-7 above.
As to claim 10, the claimed “A system for an image-capturing…” is composed of the same structural elements that were discussed with respect to claims 1-5.
Claims 11-12 are met as previously discussed in claims 6-7.
Claims 13-14 are met as previously discussed in claims 6-7.
Double Patenting
5. 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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,217,378). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The current application (19/011,657)…equates to…U.S. Pat (12,217,378).
As to claim 1, the claimed “A system..." equates to “A method or system...” of Pat ‘378 (Col.55, lines 38-52 or col.56, lines 44-57).
The claimed “a processor…”; “receive…”; “detect…” and position…” equates to “a processor…”; “receive…”; “detect…” and position…” of Pat ‘378 (Col.55, lines 38-52 or col.56, lines 44-57)
Claims 2-9 are met in claims 2-9 of Pat ‘378 (Col.55, line 53-Col.56, line 14).
As to claim 10, the claimed “A method…” is composed of the same structural elements that were discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claims 11-14 are met as previously discussed in claims 2-9
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (one being broader than the other). Allowance of claims 1-14 of the instant application would result in an unjustified timewise extension of the monopoly defined by patent claim U.S. Pat (12,217,378).
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNAN Q SHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, BRUCKART BENJAMIN can be reached on 571-272-3982. 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.
/ANNAN Q SHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
ANNAN Q. SHANG
Prosecution Insights