DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 19/190,942 filed on 04/28/2025. Claims 1-12 have been examined.
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 2-9 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a calculation section which calculates, on a basis of the information related to the behaviors of the moving body obtained by the obtaining section, index values each indicative of a likelihood of getting motion sickness; and
a determination section which determines whether or not the index values calculated by the calculation section are equal to or more than respective thresholds, wherein:
in a case where the determination section determines that at least one of the index values is equal to or more than a corresponding one of the thresholds, the control section controls the stimulus application device so as to apply the stimulus to the passenger."
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the thresholds”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a calculation section which calculates, on a basis of the information related to the behaviors of the moving body obtained by the obtaining section, index values each indicative of a likelihood of getting motion sickness; and
a determination section which determines whether or not the index values calculated by the calculation section are equal to or more than respective thresholds, wherein:
in a case where the determination section determines that at least one of the index values is equal to or more than a corresponding one of the respective thresholds, the control section controls the stimulus application device so as to apply the stimulus to the passenger."
Claims 3-9 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 3 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a threshold setting section which sets the threshold, wherein:
the calculation section calculates the index values with respect to respective kinds of the behaviors of the moving body;
the threshold setting section sets the thresholds with respect to the respective kinds of the behaviors of the moving body;
the determination section determines whether or not each of the index values calculated by the calculation section is equal to or more than one of the thresholds corresponding to the each of the index values; and
in a case where the determination section determines that any one of the index values is equal to or more than one of the thresholds corresponding to the one of the index values, the control section controls the stimulus application device so as to apply the stimulus to the passenger."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a threshold setting section which sets a threshold, wherein:
the calculation section calculates the index values with respect to respective kinds of the behaviors of the moving body;
the threshold setting section sets
the determination section determines whether or not each of the index values calculated by the calculation section is equal to or more than one threshold that corresponds to an index value; and
in a case where the determination section determines that any one of the index values is equal to or more than one of the thresholds that correspond to an index value
Claims 4-9 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 5 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, wherein:
the thresholds are set on a basis of a type of the moving body and a seating position of the passenger."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, wherein:
Claim 6 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, wherein:
the obtaining section obtains biological information of the passenger from the sensor group or an external server; and
the threshold setting section changes, on a basis of the biological information obtained by the obtaining section, the thresholds set by the threshold setting section."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, wherein:
the obtaining section obtains biological information of the passenger from the sensor group or an external server; and
the threshold setting section changes, on a basis of the biological information obtained by the obtaining section,
Claim 7 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a storage device in which motion sickness characteristics of the passenger is stored, wherein:
the threshold setting section changes, on a basis of the motion sickness characteristics of the passenger stored in the storage device, the thresholds set by the threshold setting section."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a storage device in which motion sickness characteristics of the passenger is stored, wherein:
the threshold setting section changes, on a basis of the motion sickness characteristics of the passenger stored in the storage device,
Claim 8 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a navigation device provided to the moving body, wherein:
the obtaining section obtains, from the sensor group or the navigation device, road information indicative of a road condition of a road on which the moving body travels; and
the threshold setting section sets the thresholds on a basis of the road information obtained by the obtaining section."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a navigation device provided to the moving body, wherein:
the obtaining section obtains, from the sensor group or the navigation device, road information indicative of a road condition of a road on which the moving body travels; and
the threshold setting section sets
Claim 9 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, further comprising:
an accepting section which accepts a report, given by the passenger, related to control of the stimulus application device, wherein:
in a case where the accepting section accepts the report given by the passenger, the threshold setting section changes, according to content of the report, the thresholds set by the threshold setting section."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 3, further comprising:
an accepting section which accepts a report, given by the passenger, related to control of the stimulus application device, wherein:
in a case where the accepting section accepts the report given by the passenger, the threshold setting section changes, according to content of the report,
Claim 11 recites: "The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 2, wherein:
the sensor group includes an orientation sensor which detects an orientation of the passenger's body relative to the moving body;
the calculation section corrects the index values in consideration of the orientation of the passenger's body detected by the orientation sensor; and
the determination section determines whether or not each of the index values corrected by the calculation section is equal to or more than a corresponding one of the thresholds which are in accordance with the orientation of the passenger’s body.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The motion sickness prevention device according to claim 2, wherein:
the sensor group includes an orientation sensor which detects an orientation of the passenger's body relative to the moving body;
the calculation section corrects the index values in consideration of the orientation of the passenger's body detected by the orientation sensor; and
the determination section determines whether or not each of the index values corrected by the calculation section is equal to or more than a corresponding threshold which is in accordance with the orientation of the passenger’s body.”
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashiro (JP 2020-203539 A. For purposes of this examination, Examiner will refer to the English language translation of this reference provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashiro discloses a motion sickness prevention device comprising:
a sensor group which is provided to a moving body and which detects information related to behaviors of the moving body (e.g. at least biological sensor 20, see e.g. at least ¶ 10, 14, Fig. 1, 7, and related text);
an obtaining section which obtains the information related to the behaviors of the moving body detected by the sensor group (e.g. at least biological information acquisition unit 11, information processing device 10, sickness determination unit 12, behavior determination unit 13, id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 22-28);
a stimulus application device which applies a stimulus to a passenger of the moving body (e.g. at least stimulation applying device 30, see e.g. at least ¶ 15-20, Fig. 1, 7, and related text); and
a control section which controls the stimulus application device, the control section controlling, according to the information related to the behaviors of the moving body obtained by the obtaining section, the stimulus application device so as to apply the stimulus to the passenger (e.g. at least device control unit 14, information processing device 10, see e.g. at least ¶ 36-43, Fig. 1-2, and related text).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashiro discloses:
a calculation section which calculates, on a basis of the information related to the behaviors of the moving body obtained by the obtaining section, index values each indicative of a likelihood of getting motion sickness (e.g. at least sickness prediction unit 16, sickness determination unit 12, control unit 14, see e.g. at least ¶ 27, 77); and
a determination section which determines whether or not the index values calculated by the calculation section are equal to or more than respective thresholds (id.), wherein:
in a case where the determination section determines that at least one of the index values is equal to or more than a corresponding one of the respective thresholds, the control section controls the stimulus application device so as to apply the stimulus to the passenger (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 44-45,47-48, 64, 107, Fig. 3, 6, and related text).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashiro discloses:
a threshold setting section which sets a threshold (e.g. at least sickness determination unit 12, motion sickness prediction unit 16, information processing device 10, see e.g. at least ¶ 27, 77, Fig. 1, 7, and related text), wherein:
the calculation section calculates the index values with respect to respective kinds of the behaviors of the moving body (id.);
the threshold setting section sets thresholds with respect to the respective kinds of the behaviors of the moving body (id.);
the determination section determines whether or not each of the index values calculated by the calculation section is equal to or more than one threshold that corresponds to an index value (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 28-31, 44-45, 47-48, 64, 79, 107); and
in a case where the determination section determines that any one of the index values is equal to or more than one of the thresholds that correspond to an index value, the control section controls the stimulus application device so as to apply the stimulus to the passenger (id.).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashiro discloses that:
the calculation section calculates a total index value which is a sum of the index values calculated with respect to the respective kinds of the behaviors (see e.g. at least ¶ 30-31, 48, 77, 87, Fig. 1, 7, and related text);
the threshold setting section sets a total threshold corresponding to the total index value (id.);
the determination section determines whether or not the total index value calculated by the calculation section is equal to or more than the total threshold (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 28-31, 44-45, 47-48, 64, 79, 107); and
in a case where the determination section determines that the total index value is equal to or more than the total threshold, the control section controls the stimulus application device so as to apply the stimulus to the passenger (id.).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashiro discloses that:
thresholds are set on a basis of a type of the moving body and a seating position of the passenger (see e.g. at least ¶ 71).
Regarding claim 6, Yamashiro discloses that:
the obtaining section obtains biological information of the passenger from the sensor group or an external server (see e.g. at least ¶ 10, 14, Fig. 1, 7, and related text); and
the threshold setting section changes, on a basis of the biological information obtained by the obtaining section, thresholds set by the threshold setting section (see e.g. at least ¶ 22, 77, Fig. 1, 7, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Yamashiro discloses:
a storage device in which motion sickness characteristics of the passenger is stored (e.g. at least information processing device 10, storage unit, memory, see e.g. at least ¶ 50, 71, 123, Fig. 1, 7, and related text), wherein:
the threshold setting section changes, on a basis of the motion sickness characteristics of the passenger stored in the storage device, thresholds set by the threshold setting section (see e.g. at least ¶ 22, 77, Fig. 1, 7, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Yamashiro discloses:
a navigation device provided to the moving body (e.g. at least communication unit, information processing device 10, see e.g. at least ¶ 83-85, Fig. 1, and related text), wherein:
the obtaining section obtains, from the sensor group or the navigation device, road information indicative of a road condition of a road on which the moving body travels (id.); and
the threshold setting section sets thresholds on a basis of the road information obtained by the obtaining section (id.).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashiro discloses that:
the sensor group includes at least one selected from the group consisting of an acceleration sensor which detects acceleration of the moving body, an angular velocity sensor which detects an angular velocity of the moving body, and a vital sensor which detects biological information of the passenger (see e.g. at least ¶ 71, Fig. 4, and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashiro discloses that:
the sensor group includes an orientation sensor which detects an orientation of the passenger's body relative to the moving body (see e.g. at least ¶ 14, 71, Fig. 4, and related text);
the calculation section corrects the index values in consideration of the orientation of the passenger's body detected by the orientation sensor (see e.g. at least ¶ 77, Fig. 1, 7, and related text); and
the determination section determines whether or not each of the index values corrected by the calculation section is equal to or more than a corresponding threshold which is in accordance with the orientation of the passenger’s body (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 44-45,47-48, 64, 107, Fig. 3, 6, and related text).
Regarding claim 12, Yamashiro discloses a motion sickness prevention method comprising:
detecting, by a sensor group provided to a moving body, information related to behaviors of the moving body (see e.g. at least ¶ 10, 14, Fig. 1, 7, and related text);
obtaining the information related to the behaviors of the moving body detected in the detecting (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 22-28, Fig. 2-3, 5-6, 8, and related text); and
applying a stimulus to a passenger of the moving body according to the information related to the behaviors of the moving body, the information being obtained in the obtaining (see e.g. at least ¶ 15-20, 36-43).
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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashiro (JP 2020-203539 A) in view of Rajan Kesavelu Shekar (US 2020/0324073).
Regarding claim 9, Rajan Kesavelu Shekar teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Yamashiro including namely: an accepting section which accepts a report, given by the passenger, related to control of a stimulus application device (see e.g. at least ¶ 113, Fig. 9-10, and related text), wherein:
in a case where the accepting section accepts the report given by a passenger, a threshold setting section changes, according to content of the report, thresholds set by the threshold setting section (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of
by configuring an accepting section which accepts a report, given by the passenger, related to control of the stimulus application device, wherein:
in a case where the accepting section accepts the report given by the passenger, the threshold setting section changes, according to content of the report, thresholds set by the threshold setting section as taught by Rajan Kesavelu Shekar in order to train the controller to learn the kind of stimulus to be triggered for different properties from the user and adapt the output (Rajan Kesavelu Shekar: ¶ 113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights