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 Status
After the amendments filed 09/29/2025, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 1, 6, 7 and 13 were amended and 16-20 were newly added.
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) 1-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgess et al (U.S. 8,480,491).
Regarding claim 1 Burgess discloses:
a game controller (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a trigger button (Fig. 4, trigger mechanism comprising elements 106, 114, 118, 120, and 124) having a throw length (1:64 - 2:4, the trigger has an adjustable degree of depression (i.e., throw length));
said trigger button comprising a rotatable member (Fig. 4, external portion of adjustment screw 118, which a user rotates to adjust the degree of depression) that is user accessible from outside the game controller (100) (5:15-37, Fig. 4, trigger adjustment control screw 118 which is rotated to adjust the degree of depression of the trigger button);
said trigger button comprising a translatable member (Fig. 4, internal portion of adjustment screw 118, which move in response to the user adjusting the external screw head using a required tool) that is disposed within the game controller (Fig. 4), wherein the rotatable member (external head of 118) is thread-ably engaged with the translatable member (internal screw of 118 which rotates based on the user adjusting the external screw head using a required tool),
wherein rotation of the rotatable member causes the translatable member to translate within the trigger button, thereby adjusting the throw length of the trigger button (5:15-37, rotation of the external portion of adjustment screw 118 causes the internal portion of adjustment screw 118 to be driven in or out of the chassis of controller 100, thereby causing the degree of depression (i.e., throw length) to be adjusted), wherein the trigger button comprises a trigger enclosure (Fig. 1, 110) and wherein the trigger button comprises an inner adjuster which rotates relative to the trigger enclosure (4:31-47, Fig. 4, internal portion of adjustment screw 120, which move in response to the user adjusting the external screw head using a required tool relative to chassis 110).
Regarding claim 3 Burgess discloses that which is discussed above. Burgess further discloses that:
the trigger button comprises a user interface (Fig. 4, 118, 120), wherein the user interface is configured to provide adjustability of the throw length of the trigger button (5:15-37, rotation of the external portion of adjustment screw 118 causes the internal portion of adjustment screw 118 to be driven in or out of the chassis of controller 100thereby causing the degree of depression (i.e., throw length) to be adjusted).
Regarding claim 4 Burgess discloses that which is discussed above. Burgess further discloses that:
the user interface (118, 120) comprises a hex wrench insert (4:48-63, Fig. 1, trigger adjustment control screw 118 and/or 120 include a hex head interface which uses a hex driver which allows a user to adjust the degree of depression (i.e., throw length) of trigger body).
Regarding claim 5 Burgess discloses that which is discussed above. Burgess further discloses that:
the trigger button comprises a retention plate (3:63-4:17, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, chassis 110 which encloses the internal components of the gaming controller 100, trigger body extends partially through an opening of chassis 110). Although Burgess does not specifically disclose that the retention plate has indicia thereon or that the indicia relate to a rotational setting of the user interface, where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter, that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (See MPEP § 2111.05).
Regarding claim 6 Burgess discloses that which is discussed above. Burgess further discloses that:
wherein the trigger enclosure comprises teeth which engage corresponding teeth on the rotatable member (2:18-19, 4:18-19, 4:31-42, threaded inserts which are cut into the chassis 110 to receive the threaded portion of adjustment screw 118).
Regarding claim 12 Burgess discloses that which is discussed above. Burgess further discloses that:
the trigger button comprises a digital trigger input and is in communication with an analog measuring device, wherein the trigger button provides a digital input as well as an analog input (6:21-42, digital switches which receive input from trigger body which causes a digital signal to be provided to the gaming system (i.e., the trigger provides an analog input to the digital switches and a digital input to the gaming system)).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al (U.S. 8,480,491) in view of Schmitz et al (U.S. 2016/0361639)
Regarding claim 2 Burgess discloses that which is discussed above. Burgess further discloses that:
the trigger button comprises a trigger assembly (Fig. 4, 108).
However, Burgess does not specifically disclose:
a removable cap over the trigger assembly.
Schmitz teaches:
a game controller (¶4) which comprises a trigger assembly (¶35-36, controls 112 which generate control signals responsive to user input) and a removable cap over the trigger assembly (¶49, Fig. 3-5, removable trigger accessory 300 which is removably affixed to the game controller)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the removable cap as taught by Schmitz into the game controller as taught by Burgess in order to provide users with preferred button configurations, thereby providing players a more enjoyable gaming experience (Schmitz, ¶30-31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 includes allowable limitations previously found in claim 7 (See Remarks, pg. 5). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The previous office action indicated that claims 7-11 would be allowable “if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 7 has not been rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715