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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges Request for Continued Examination filed 2/19/26 and receipt of amendments/arguments filed 2/9/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-12, 15-18, and 20 are pending, Claims 2-3, 6, 13-14, and 19 are canceled, and Claims 1, 4, 12, and 15 are currently amended.
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) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henty (US 5,838,138).
Claim 18: Henty discloses a method, comprising: receiving a user-applied force to a user-activated trigger button (Col. 6:8-39, see below) that causes a magnet (40, 124, 126) attached to a button frame (combination of element 44, 46 of Fig. 2a or combination of element 120, 122 of Fig. 7) to move at least partially within a wire coil (42, 128, 130) of a casing of the user-activated trigger button to cause generation of an electric current in the wire coil; and storing energy in an energy storage device (32) based on the electric current in the wire coil (Col. 1:55-62, Col. 3:1-14, Col. 3:40-Col. 4:6 (mandrel (48) is a cylindrical shaft), Col. 4:11-Col. 5:11, Col. 6:64-Col. 7:34, Figs. 3-9, emphasis on Figs. 3-4 and descriptions thereof), wherein receiving the user-applied force causes the magnet to move along an arc defined by a hinge (rocker arm 122 is pivotably mounted to the casing e.g. is mounted via a hinge means (a joint that allows movement within)), wherein the arc includes at least a first portion that extends within the wire coil and a second portion that extends outside the wire coil (see above, Col. 6:8-39, Fig. 7). For example, if the user applies pressure or force at element 120 directly above magnet 126 then magnet 124 moves in a first portion of an arc path outside the wire coil 128, however, if the user applies force at element 120 directly above magnet 124 then magnet 124 moves in a second portion of the arc path within the wire coil 128. It is clear that the magnet moves along an arc path defined by the hinge due to pivoting which results in radial movement.
Claim 20: Henty discloses comprising conditioning the electric current before storing the energy in the energy storage device (Col. 4:11-Col. 5:11, emphasis on Col. 4:50-Col. 5:11).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 2021/0093950) in view of Henty (US 5,838,138), and in further view of Antonio (US 2016/0325177).
Claims 1 and 12: Duncan discloses an apparatus/game controller (Fig. 1, element 100), comprising a controller casing (Figs. 1a-b) comprising an opening (Figs. 1a-3, 12-16); and a user activated trigger button extending through the opening, the user activated button comprising: a casing (Figs 2-3, 12 - element 132); a button frame (Figs. 12-13a, element 118a) comprising a post (210); a hinge attaching the button frame to the casing wherein the button frame and/or post moves within an arc or radial path corresponding to the hinge or axis of the hinge in response to force applied to the trigger button (Figs. 12-13a, 15, element 206 (hinge), ¶ 70-73, emphasis on Fig. 15a, ¶ 71 which illustrates the frame or post moving within/along an arc or radial path corresponding to the hinge or axis).
Duncan teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the casing comprising a wire coil having a radius of a first value; the button frame comprising a magnet having a radius of a second value smaller than the first value, wherein the hinge is configured to move the magnet along an arc defined by the hinge in response to force, wherein the arc includes at least a first portion that extends within the wire coil and a second portion that extends outside the wire coil. Duncan at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be applied to the invention (¶ 111) and teaches the apparatus including a rechargeable battery/power source (¶ 55, 61-66). Furthermore, an analogous art of Henty teaches a similarly structured apparatus (Fig. 6a, 8a) comprising a casing (12) comprising a wire coil (42) having a radius of a first value; the button frame (combination of element 44, 46 of Fig. 2a) comprising a magnet (40) attached to a post having a radius of a second value smaller than the first value (Col. 3:1-14, Col. 3:54-Col. 4:6 (mandrel (48) is a cylindrical shaft)), wherein upon forced applied to the button frame causes the magnet via the post to move within the wire coil, wherein a first portion of the magnet extends within the wire coil and a second portion extends outside the wire coil (such that a movement path includes a portion within the coil and a portion that extends outside the coil), wherein movement of the magnet within the wire coil generates a current in the wire coil that provides a power generations means that extends battery life (Col. 1:55-62, Col. 3:1-14, Col. 3:40-Col. 4:6 (mandrel (48) is a cylindrical shaft), Col. 4:11-Col. 5:11, Col. 6:64-Col. 7:34, Figs. 2a-9, emphasis on Fig. 2 and descriptions thereof). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the casing and button frame including post of Duncan with the coil and magnet power generation means of Henty because such a modification provides a power generation means which allows for battery lifetime to be extended without significantly increasing the size, weight, and cost or manufacturing complexity of the apparatus (Henty – Col. 1:55-62, Col. 3:40-54).
The above modification would result in the magnet moving at least partially within the wire coil due to movement of the button frame with reference to the casing via the hinge of Duncan in view of Henty such that the hinge converts the force applied to movement of the magnet along the arc defined by the hinge to generate a current in the wire coil. Specifically, the modification of Duncan in view of Henty would result in the magnet of the button frame to move along an arc defined by the hinge because the button frame of Duncan moves around an arc or axis of the hinge (see above), wherein the arc includes at least a first portion that extends within the wire coil and a second portion that extends outside the wire coil (see above cited portions with respect Henty). One of ordinary skill in the art, based on the above modification of Duncan in view of Henty, understands that the magnet moves along an arc defined by the hinge of Duncan in response to a force applied to the button frame that is attached the hinge, wherein the arc includes a portion that extends within the wire coil and a second portion that extends outside the wire coil in order to harvest mechanical energy generated from actuation or activation of the button of Duncan in view of Henty.
However, assuming arguendo it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the wire coil of Duncan in view of Henty such that the interior of the wire coil is located within the arc path of motion of the magnet of Duncan in view of Henty because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a mean of allowing the magnet to move along a path of the wire coil in which Duncan in view of Henty is intended. Such a rearranging of parts of an invention involving only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Duncan in view of Henty teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the apparatus further comprising a button cap attached to the button frame, the button cap comprising a contact surface for a trigger button. Duncan at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be applied to the invention (¶ 111). Furthermore, an analogous art of Antonio teaches a similarly structured apparatus (controller (10)) comprising a button cap (100) attached to the button frame (15) comprising a contract surface for a trigger button (¶ 57, 65-69). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Duncan in view of Henty with the button cap means of Antonio because such a modification reduce the trigger range of motion (Antonio - ¶ 17, 88). Such a modification improves comfort and ergonomics for actuating triggers or buttons (Antonio - ¶ 88).
The above, modification would result in the force applied the button frame via the button cap since the cap is attached to the frame.
Claim 4: Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio discloses that the hinge is configured to convert a force applied to the button frame to a current in the wire coil, wherein the button frame is attached to the case such that motion of the button frame causes the magnet to generate a current in the wire coil (see above, Henty – Col. 1:55-62, Col. 2:6-19, Col. 3:40-54). Particularly, movement of the button frame via the hinge (resulting from an applied force on the button frame via a user) causes the magnet attached to the button frame to move within the wire coil causing the generation of a current.
Claim 5: Duncan teaches the hinge comprises a metal pin that extends through the button frame and the casing (¶ 70).
Claim 7: Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting comprising a screw that secures the button frame to the button cap. However, applicant fails to disclose that having a screw that secures the button frame to the button cap solve any stated problem, provides an advantage, or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the securing means of Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio (Antonio - ¶ 65-66), or applicant’s invention, would perform the same function of securing the button frame to the button cap. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio to obtain the invention as specified in 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio.
Claims 8 and 15: Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio teaches a spring (208) coupled to the metal pin and configured to return the button cap to an extended position after application of a force to the button cap causes the button cap to move to a depressed position (Duncan - ¶ 70-71).
Claim 9: Duncan teaches the apparatus having an energy storage device (see above, rechargeable battery). Additionally, Henty discloses the wire coil being coupled to the energy storage device (Col. 4:11-Col. 5:11, Col. 6:64-Col. 7:34, Figs. 3-9, emphasis on Figs. 3-4 and descriptions thereof). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wire coil of Duncan in view of Henty such that it is coupled to the energy storage device as further taught by Henty because such a modification provides a power generation means which allows for battery lifetime to be extended without significantly increasing the size, weight, and cost or manufacturing complexity of the apparatus (Henty – Col. 1:55-62, Col. 3:40-54).
Claim 10: Duncan in view of Henty discloses an energy harvesting circuit (battery charging circuit (34)) coupled to the wire coil and to the energy storage device (Henty - Col. 4:11-Col. 5:11).
Claim 16: Duncan teaches the apparatus having an energy storage device (see above, rechargeable battery). Additionally, Henty discloses the wire coil being coupled to the energy storage device (Col. 4:11-Col. 5:11, Col. 6:64-Col. 7:34, Figs. 3-9, emphasis on Figs. 3-4 and descriptions thereof). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wire coil of Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio such that it is coupled to the energy storage device as further taught by Henty because such a modification provides a power generation means which allows for battery lifetime to be extended without significantly increasing the size, weight, and cost or manufacturing complexity of the apparatus (Henty – Col. 1:55-62, Col. 3:40-54).
Claim 17: Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio discloses an energy harvesting circuit (battery charging circuit (34)) coupled to the wire coil and to the energy storage device (Henty - Col. 4:11-Col. 5:11).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 2021/0093950) in view of Henty (US 5,838,138) in view of Antonio (US 2016/0325177), and in further view of Guerrero (WO 2023/214929 A1).
Claim 11: Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio teaches the above, in addition to sensor (214) activated by depression of the button frame; and logic circuitry (processors on main pcb 134) coupled to the sensor switch to process user input, wherein the logic circuitry is coupled to the energy storage device (140)(Fig. 15a, ¶ 55, 71, 82-83), but lacks explicitly suggesting the sensor being a pressure-activated switch. Duncan at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be applied to the invention (¶ 111). Furthermore, an analogous art of Guerrero teaches a similarly structured apparatus (controller (100)) a pressure-activated switch (180) activated by depression of the button frame (124); and logic circuitry (¶ 47-49 coupled to the pressure-activated switch to process user input (¶ 47-49, 52). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus, particularly the substitution of the sensor trigger means, of Duncan in view of Henty in view of Antonio with pressure-activated switch trigger means of Guerrero because such a modification would of yielded predictable results, namely, a means of processor user input via triggers buttons in which at least Duncan is intended (Duncan - ¶ 71). Such a modification improves the controls and responses of the gaming controller (Guerrero - ¶ 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The applicant argues that the combination of Duncan in view Henty fails to teach the magnet moving along an arc defined by a hinge to generate a current in a wire coil, wherein Henty is specific the magnet traveling in a vertical direction through the wire coil.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Duncan at least teaches a button frame including a post that moves within an arc or radial path corresponding to the hinge or axis of the hinge or axis of the hinge in response to force applied to the trigger button e.g. the hinge causes or allows for movement of the frame and/or post along a arc. Henty, while teaching the magnet traveling in a vertical direction through the wire coil, generally teaches a type of button/key that include a post including a magnet wherein movement of the button due to force cause the post including the magnet to move within a wire coil to create or generate current in the wire coil. The combination of Duncan in view of Henty results in the magnet on the post of Duncan moving along a arc due to the button hinge configuration within a coil to produce a current as taught by Henty. The modification would result in the magnet moving at least partially within the wire coil due to movement of the button frame with reference to the casing via the hinge of Duncan in view of Henty. Specifically, the modification of Duncan in view of Henty would result in the magnet of the button frame to move along an arc defined by the hinge because the button frame of Duncan moves around an arc or axis of the hinge (see above), wherein the arc includes at least a first portion that extends within the wire coil and a second portion that extends outside the wire coil (see above cited portions with respect Henty). One of ordinary skill in the art, based on the above modification of Duncan in view of Henty, understands that the magnet moves along an arc defined by the hinge of Duncan in response to a force applied to the button frame that is attached the hinge, wherein the arc includes a portion that extends within the wire coil and a second portion that extends outside the wire coil in order to harvest mechanical energy generated from actuation or activation of the button of Duncan in view of Henty (e.g. such that the hinge converts the force applied to movement of the magnet along the arc defined by the hinge to generate a current in the wire coil).
However, assuming arguendo it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the wire coil of Duncan in view of Henty such that the interior of the wire coil is located within the arc path of motion of the magnet of Duncan in view of Henty because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a mean of allowing the magnet to move along a path of the wire coil in which Duncan in view of Henty is intended. Such a rearranging of parts of an invention involving only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Henty teaches away from the Claimed Invention
Applicant argues that Henty teaches away from the claimed invention due to the motion along a vertical direction of the wire coil.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Henty teaches an example of the magnetic motion along a vertical direction due to type of button/key configuration which is directed to a button pushed in the vertical direction. Henty furthermore teaches magnetic motion along an arc due to a type of button/key configuration which is directed to tilting/pivoting motion of the button/key (se above). The examiner understands that none of the examples are restricted or limited to only a certain path of motion of the magnet within the wire coil, but focuses on the fact that motion of a magnet within a wire coil can produce a current within the wire coil.
The alleged combination contradicts the Office’s motivation
The applicant argues that the modification of Duncan with the teaches of Henty would result in increase in the weight, cost, and manufacturing complexity of Duncan’s apparatus.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The office action concludes that such a modification provides a power generation means which allows for battery lifetime to be extended without significantly increasing the size, weight, and cost or manufacturing complexity of the apparatus. Henty suggest that such increases would not be significant as opposed not increasing the size, weight, and cost or manufacturing complexity at all.
Claims 18 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated over Henty. Action at 2. Applicant disagrees with the rejection.
The above response to arguments with respect to Claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, applicant argues that:
"Henty explicitly illustrates and describes magnet 40 traveling in a vertical direction (i.e., a single direction) through the wire coil 42, and does not describe magnet 40 moving along an arc defined by a hinge. Indeed, Henty does not describe a hinge. Even in view of the Office's interpretation of Henty's rocker arm 122 being pivotably mounted to the case, Applicant respectfully notes that Henty's magnets 124 and 126 are still illustrated as moving in a vertical direction to enter coils 128 and 130, and that Henty is silent as to any other motion behavior of magnets 124 and 126"
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that a trigger button is equivalent to the Henty’s multi-directional controller, wherein the rocker type controller acts a button that triggers multi direction control signals (Col. 6:8-39). Furthermore, Henty teaches wherein receiving the user-applied force causes the magnet to move along an arc defined by a hinge (rocker arm 122 is pivotably mounted to the casing e.g. is mounted via a hinge means (a joint that allows movement within)), wherein the arc includes at least a first portion that extends within the wire coil and a second portion that extends outside the wire coil (see above, Col. 6:8-39, Fig. 7). For example, if the user applies pressure or force at element 120 directly above magnet 126 then magnet 124 moves in a first portion of an arc path outside the wire coil 128, however, if the user applies force at element 120 directly above magnet 124 then magnet 124 moves in a second portion of the arc path within the wire coil 128. The magnet moves along an arc path defined by the hinge due to pivoting which results in radial movement. The rocker arm inherently makes the magnet move in a vertical arc or curve into the coils 128 and 130 due to the tilt/pivot motion of the rocker arm (which is interpreted as the hinge) the magnets cannot strictly move vertically because of the tilt/pivot motion. Fig. 7 illustrates the magnets and/or rocker arms in a neutral state not in motion.
As such the rejections of claims 18 and 20 are maintained.
Rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant indicates that the arguments with respect to Claim 1 apply herein with respect to Claim 11; therefore, the above response to arguments with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715