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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 05/22/2023.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
The Drawings filed on 05/22/2023 are noted.
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 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 8 to 14 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.
Claims 8 to 14 recite various elements which are claimed not in terms of their structures, but in terms of their functions. Such an approach is explicitly permitted by 35 USC 112(f), which states:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
However, the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing this claiming technique is that the corresponding structure for each such element must be clearly linked or associated to the function recited, so that the element may be construed in the manner specified by the statute. When a clear link or association is not present, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claim containing the element, and the claim therefore fails to satisfy the requirement of 35 USC 112(b) that an invention must be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. See MPEP 2181.
The following claim elements are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) paragraph because a skilled artisan would conclude that they are so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming (for example, by using “means” or a nonce term that is not an art-recognized name of a structure of class of structures in conjunction with functional language):
“first acquiring module” as recited in claim 8;
“second acquiring module” as recited in claim 8;
“splitting module” as recited in claims 8 to 13;
“transmission module” as recited in claims 8 and 12;
“first determining module” as recited in claim 10; and
“second determining module” as recited in claims 12 and 14; and
any other claimed “module” in conjunction with functional language that may have been inadvertently omitted from the list above.
However, for each element listed above, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or act performs the claimed function. For example, although Figs. 8, 9, and 10, and the accompanying text describe the various “modules,” these modules amount to mere “black box” elements and are not sufficient to support the invocations of 35 USC 112(f) because there must be some explanation of how each specific component performs its respective claimed function (such as by describing a specific algorithm in conjunction with a general-purpose processor). See MPEP 2181. Consequently, each claim containing an element listed above fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
For each claim and each limitation listed above, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Note: Applicant is respectfully reminded that a trivial amendment (such as replacing the word “module” with an equally non-structural term such as “unit” or “device”) would not be sufficient to prevent the claims from being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Furthermore, for a computer-implemented invention, examples of “corresponding structure” include a specific arrangement of circuitry or a specific algorithm running on a general-purpose processor. Merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a “bank computer”), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., an “access control manager”), “logic,” “code,” or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. See MPEP 2181.
Additionally, the examiner notes that claims 8-14 have been interpreted as “machines” at least because of the invocations of 35 USC 112(f) described above. Should applicant choose to amend the claims so that they no longer invoke 35 USC 112(f), the examiner recommends including an explicit recitation of computer hardware (such as “a microprocessor and memory”), so as to preclude a rejection under 35 USC 101.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
AIA Notice
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0134221 A1 to Yamano et al. (hereinafter Yamano) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0218902 A1 to Hwang et al. (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 8 and 15, Yamano discloses a data processing method of a gamepad, comprising:
acquiring a configuration parameter of the gamepad (fig. 7, paras. [0087]-[0089] discloses a vibration data for a game), the configuration parameter comprising a maximum transmission unit (MTU) value for communication with the gamepad;
acquiring a vibration signal to be transmitted (fig. 7, paras. [0087]-[0089], [0137]-[0140], [0148] discloses vibration command data to be transmitted);
splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into a plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter, and generating a corresponding transmission time point for each of the plurality of sub-signals, each of the plurality of sub-signals having a size not greater than the MTU value; and
transmitting the plurality of sub-signals to the gamepad in sequence according to an order of transmission time points of the plurality of sub-signals (fig. 7, paras. [0087]-[0089], [0137]-[0140], [0148] discloses right and left vibration command values obtained by the vibration-data processing unit 206 are transmitted to the game controller 101 by the vibration-command-value transmission unit 204).
While, Yamano discloses analysis and transmission of vibration commands, it does not explicitly disclose: the configuration parameter comprising a maximum transmission unit (MTU) value for communication with the gamepad,
splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into a plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter, and generating a corresponding transmission time point for each of the plurality of sub-signals, each of the plurality of sub-signals having a size not greater than the MTU value.
In a related invention that discloses signal transmission, Hwang discloses the configuration parameter comprising a maximum transmission unit (MTU) value for communication with the gamepad (paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247] discloses MTU values for communication of data packets),
splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into a plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter, and generating a corresponding transmission time point for each of the plurality of sub-signals, each of the plurality of sub-signals having a size not greater than the MTU value (paras. [0011]-[0017] disclose splitting of the data signals for transmission and transmission of the signals … The size of each of the split two or more IP packets may be equal to or less than an MTU of IP packets).
Yamano discloses a gaming device with vibration-data analysis unit that analyzes the vibration data supplied from the content processing unit to separate the mode flag and the left vibration command value and the right vibration command value, and transmits them to the vibration-data processing unit. The vibration-command-value transmission unit transmits, by wireless communication or wired communication, the vibration command values for the right and left haptic presentation units 4R and 4L generated by the vibration-data processing unit to the game controller.
Hwang discloses a method for transmitting a broadcasting signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamano with the broadcast transmission features of Hwang in order to further improve the quality of vibration transmissions presented the sent to a game controller of a user (Yamano, para. [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the data processing method according to claim 1, the operation of splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter comprising:
splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to a rule that each of the plurality of sub-signals has a size not greater than the MTU value and a difference between the MTU value and the size of each of the plurality of sub-signals is less than a preset threshold (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the data processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, after acquiring the vibration signal to be transmitted, whether the vibration signal to be transmitted has a size greater than the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]; and implementing the operation of splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter, in response to the vibration signal to be transmitted having the size greater than the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the data processing method according to claim 1, the configuration parameter further comprising a cache capacity of the gamepad, and the operation of splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into a plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter comprising: determining whether the vibration signal to be transmitted has a size greater than the cache capacity; removing, in response to the vibration signal to be transmitted having the size greater than the cache capacity, a part of the vibration signal to be transmitted so that a remaining part of the vibration signal to be transmitted has a size not greater than the cache capacity;and splitting the remaining part of the vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the data processing method according to claim 1, the configuration parameter further comprising a cache capacity of the gamepad, and the data processing method further comprising: determining, after acquiring the vibration signal to be transmitted, whether the vibration signal to be transmitted has a size greater than the cache capacity; and transmitting an instruction of clearing cache to the gamepad at intervals with a preset duration during a process of transmitting the plurality of sub-signals to the gamepad, in response to the vibration signal to be transmitted having the size greater than the cache capacity.
Regarding Claim 6, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the data processing method according to claim 1, the configuration parameter further comprising a signal format supported by the gamepad, and the operation of splitting the vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter comprising:
determining whether a format of the vibration signal to be transmitted is consistent with the signal format supported by the gamepad (Yamano, fig. 7, paras. [0087]-[0089], [0137]-[0140], [0148]);
converting the format of the vibration signal to be transmitted to the signal format supported by the gamepad, in response to the format of the vibration signal to be transmitted being not consistent with the signal format supported by the gamepad; and splitting a converted vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the data processing method according to claim 1, the operation of acquiring the configuration parameter of the gamepad comprising: transmitting a query instruction to the gamepad; and receiving information carrying a configuration parameter returned by the gamepad according to the query instruction (Yamano, fig. 7, paras. [0087]-[0089], [0137]-[0140], [0148]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the game system according to claim 8, wherein the splitting module is configured to split the vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to a rule that each of the plurality of sub-signals has a size not greater than the MTU value and a difference between the MTU value and the size of each of the plurality of sub-signals is less than a preset threshold (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the game system according to claim 8, wherein the data processing device includes a first determining module configured to determine whether the vibration signal has a size greater than the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]); the splitting module is configured to split the vibration signal to be transmitted into a plurality of sub-signals according to the configuration parameter in response to the first determining module determining that the vibration signal to be transmitted has the size greater than the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the game system according to claim 8, wherein the configuration parameter further comprises a cache capacity of the gamepad; the splitting module is configured to determine whether the vibration signal to be transmitted has a size greater than the cache capacity, remove, in response to the vibration signal to be transmitted having the size greater than the cache capacity, a part of the vibration signal to be transmitted so that a remaining part of the vibration signal to be transmitted has a size not greater than the cache capacity, and split the remaining part of the vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the game system according to claim 8, wherein the configuration parameter further comprises a cache capacity of the gamepad; and the data processing device comprises a second determining module configured to determine whether the vibration signal to be transmitted has a size greater than the cache capacity; the transmission module is configured to transmit an instruction of clearing cache to the gamepad at intervals with a preset duration during a process of transmitting the plurality of sub-signals to the gamepad, in response to the second determining module determining that the vibration signal to be transmitted has the size greater than the cache capacity.
Regarding Claim 13, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the game system according to claim 8, wherein the configuration parameter further comprises a signal format supported by the gamepad (Yamano, fig. 7, paras. [0087]-[0089], [0137]-[0140], [0148]); the splitting module is configured to determine whether a format of the vibration signal to be transmitted is consistent with the signal format supported by the gamepad, convert the format of the vibration signal to be transmitted to the signal format supported by the gamepad, in response to the format of the vibration signal to be transmitted being not consistent with the signal format supported by the gamepad, and split a converted vibration signal to be transmitted into the plurality of sub-signals according to the MTU value (Hwang, paras. [0011]-[0014], [0065], [0245]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamano in view of Hwang discloses the game system according to claim 8, wherein the second acquiring module is configured to transmit a query instruction to the gamepad, and receive information carrying a configuration parameter returned by the gamepad according to the query instruction (Yamano, fig. 7, paras. [0087]-[0089], [0137]-[0140], [0148]).
Conclusion
Claims 1 to 15 are examined above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715