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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim wording and terms lead to some confusion as well, for example the “separator” for the backplate is not shown to be the same “separator” when talking about the finger and palm ergonomics. The examiner has interpreted the claim language as best to match to the specification and applied art as close as possible accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "H" and "20" have both been used to designate the handle portion of the grip. However, the specification states that the H portion is the extended portion and that 20 portion even though it’s pointing at the same location is the “bottom” portion. Further an angle is shown in Fig. 3 however 20 is labeled but H is not. There are several such issues, the examiner would like a clarification on these matters.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (US 20180133594 A1) in view of Lammer (US 20090191989 A1) and Watanachote (US 20050277470 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Guo teaches :
a mobile game pad (Guo, Fig. 1 gaming pad) comprising:
a body having an accommodation groove corresponding to a mobile phone on the top to be mounted on the mobile phone while surrounding the rear side and the edge of the mobile phone (Guo, Fig. 1 space for mobile phone surrounding the backside of the phone as well as the side edges); and
a grip unit coupled to the bottom of the body (Guo, Fig. 1 grips), wherein the grip unit includes:
a pack having an internal space (Guo, Fig. 1 hollowed out section for the palm pads);
a separator positioned in the pack and dividing the internal space into two or more spaces (Guo, Fig. 1 palm pad is divided up to the top and bottom halves of the grip), wherein the pack has a grip region protruding downward from the body so that user can hold the grip region by hand (Guo, Fig. 1 grip regions are protruding downwards away from the main body of the device as well as the mobile device if attached, so that a user may hold them);
wherein the pack has two grip regions protruding from a side and another side of the bottom so that a user can hold the grip regions with both hands (Guo, Fig. 1 two grips, one for each hand),
wherein the separator separating grip regions and the other region is positioned in the internal space (Guo, Fig. 1 the spaces for the separators are hollowed out which means that they are internal to the device itself, the palm pads are placed on top).
wherein the separator further comprises a plate corresponding to a part of the palm under the thumb (Guo, Fig. 1 palm pads).
Guo fails to teach, however Lammer teaches, wherein the grip comprises :
a filler filling the internal space and being able to flow in the internal space (Lammer, paragraph [0099] grip regions may be injected with a shear thickening material, shear thickening materials are non-Newtonian fluids whose viscosity, changes under stress or force, the greater the force the more viscose the fluid becomes); and
wherein the pack having the internal space filled with the filler included in the grip region (Lammer, paragraph [0099] grip regions may be injected with a shear thickening material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to inject the shear thickening material of Lammer’s grips into the handle grips of Guo in order to provide force absorption during intense gaming sessions.
Guo in view of Lammer fails to teach, however Watanachote teaches wherein the separator divides a space corresponding to the grip region into at least five spaces, and four spaces among the five Spaces are spaces corresponding to each of user’s four fingers except for the thumb and the other one space is a space corresponding to a palm (Watanachote, Figs. 30 and 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add finger spacings in addition to the grip pad of Guo when combined with Lammer in order to allow for a more ergonomic feel to the grip.
Regarding Claim 6, Guo in view of Lammer and Watanachote further teaches wherein the filler is a material, which solidifies when pressure is applied and recovers fluidity when pressure is removed, and includes starch (Lammer, paragraph [0056 0099] as explained above, shear thickening materials increase viscosity based on force and recover when force is removed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant did not fully address the examiner’s objections to the disclosure :Specifically pertaining to the title, specification & drawings. Objection regarding the 45-degree angle has been withdrawn because said limitations have been removed from the claims.
With regards to the claims, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments:
The applicant argues that Lammer fails to remedy the deficiencies of Guo, specifically Lammer is in the context of protective gear rather than tactile sensation for a mobile gaming pad. The examiner would like to point out that Lammer provides this “protective gear” specifically in the grip of many different applications and is not to any individual industry. Further it’s clear to the examiner that the fluid agent is specifically being inserted into a grip of the different elements, for example a tennis racquet or a golf club, therefore it would have been obvious to apply sub a fluid material to any grip including a gaming grip making similar contact with the hand, palm, and fingers.
The applicant further argues that the functionality of the fluid material in the grip is uniquely to provide adaptive tactile feedback to the gaming controller which is not taught by the combination of references. The examiner notes that “tactile feedback” is not claimed as a physical or functional characteristic.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 45-dress angle is moot since said limitation has been removed from the claims.
The applicant argues that the separator of Guo is a structural pad separation and not a functional divider for filler flow control or pressure-responsiveness within a dynamic system. However, such a limitation is not present in the claim. Nowhere in the claim is “filler flow control” recited.
The applicant argues that Watanachote fails to teach “any integration with a viscoelastic filler, nor dual-response tactile behavior within each finger/palm zone.” Similar to the above argument, said limitation is not recited in the claim. Watanachote is used to each the shape of the grip which is related to spacing for fingers, thumbs, and the palm.
The applicant argues that Guo’s plate is “structurally unrelated to the function of promoting localized pressure concentration to induce filler solidification.” Similar to the above argument, said limitation is not recited in the claim. The claim merely calls for a plate corresponding to a part of the palm under the thumb, which Guo clearly teaches.
The applicant argues that Lammer “does not propose a structure that divides the hand into zones and implements dual tactile sensations using this material”, the material being a filler that solidifies when pressure is applied and recovers fluidity and includes starch. As previously stated, said limitation is not present in the claim, Lammer clearly teaches a starch based fluid which “solidifies when pressure is applied and recovers fluidity when pressure is removed” as claimed and as cited above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ke Xiao whose telephone number is 571-272-7776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri from 6AM-2PM.
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.
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.
/KE XIAO/SPE, Art Unit 2627