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 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.
Claim 10 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the antecedent basis for “the springs” and “other shock absorbing mechanisms” is lacking.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites “The method of claims 1 and 9” but claim 1 is directed to a device. Claim 11 recites “The device of claim 8” but claim 8 is directed to a method. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (pub. no. 20120188160) in view of Grome et al. (pat. no. 6,580,418).
Regarding claim 1, Wallace discloses an interactive input device for controlling a video game, comprising: a base configured to support a user's hand; a mouse component attached to the base; a tube connected to the mouse component and configured to move in response to mouse motion (“FIG. 1 is a cross section view of a mouse with a joystick according to an example embodiment indicated generally at 100. A mouse portion 110 is coupled to actuate a joystick portion 115. In one embodiment, the mouse is a standard three button mouse, with right 120 and left 125 buttons, and a scroll wheel 130 as seen in a front view of an alternative mouse in FIG. 2 utilizing the same reference numbers for like components. In further embodiments, the mouse may include just the right and left buttons.
The mouse portion 110 is movably or slideably mounted on the joystick portion 115, and has a base 135 to which a joystick 140 supported within the joystick portion 115 is coupled, or otherwise disposed within a hole in the base such that movement of the base 135 relative to the joystick portion 115 causes movement of the joystick 140”, [0013] & [0014]);
configured to convert the motion of the tube into electronic joystick signals (“Joystick 140 in one embodiment is supported by a circuit board 155 that translates movements of the joystick 140 into signals to be sent to the computer, along with signals corresponding to mouse button actuation sent by a mouse portion circuit board 160. In further embodiments, the circuit boards may be supported within the respective mouse and joystick portions by posts, ridges, or other supports, and the portions may be formed of plastic or other suitable materials. In still further embodiments, the circuit boards may be replaced by other electronic components such as circuit chips or discrete components otherwise supported within the portions”, [0017]);
a rubber sheet positioned between the mouse component and the base to minimize the degree of play between the two components facilitating smooth movement of the mouse component (“In some embodiments, the mouse portion 110 and joystick portion 115 may include a compliant band 150 coupled around a perimeter of the interface between the mouse portion 110 and joystick portion 115. The compliant band may be formed of rubber or a polymer or other material that provide a flexible shield to allow movement between the mouse portion 110 and joystick portion 115 while maintaining a desired tactile feel for the user and holding the combination of mouse portion 110 and joystick portion 115 together in an integrated manner”, [0016]).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that Wallace does not explicitly disclose an analog potentiometer to convert motion of the tube into a signal. Grome however, teaches an analog potentiometer to convert motion of a tube into a signal (“Preferably, the direction and magnitude of such a pivotal displacement can be determined by measuring a corresponding rotation about two orthogonal axes (the X and Y axes) that pass through the center point. Thus, a first position sensor and a second position sensor are operatively coupled to the control handle shaft so as to produce a signal that is proportional to an angular rotation of the joystick about the X and Y axes. The first and second position sensors preferably comprise potentiometers, so that a direction and a magnitude of the pivotal displacement of the joystick control handle can be readily determined as a function of output voltage signals produced by the potentiometers”, col. 3, lines 23-34).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Here both Wallace and Grome are directed to joystick input devices. To use the analog potentiometers of Grome as the sensor to determine displacement would be to choose from a well-known identified predictable solution with an reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wallace to use the analog potentiometers of Grome. To do so would enable the designer to use off the shelf parts thereby reducing cost and development time.
Regarding claim 2, Wallace discloses the mouse component comprises at least two buttons and a scroll wheel; and the mouse circuit board is configured to process clicks from the buttons and scrolling action from the scroll wheel to generate additional control signals ([0013]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wallace and Grome discloses the analog potentiometer comprises a 2-axis joystick capable of detecting multi-directional movement (Grome: col. 3, lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 5, Wallace discloses the base includes a flat surface to rest on a user's lap or a table (“In one embodiment, the joystick portion 115 has a bottom 170 formed with a non skid type of material such as rubber. The bottom 170 may also include filler material to add weight and help prevent the combination of mouse portion 110 and joystick portion 115 from sliding or otherwise moving during use”, [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Wallace discloses a communication interface for transmitting the electronic joystick signals to a video game console or computer (“Joystick portion 115 includes a joystick control circuit 430 that is coupled to joystick 140. Movement of the joystick 140 is interpreted by joystick control circuit 430. Signals from the mouse circuit 425 are provided to a computer to provide signals to applications and other code running on the computer via a driver running on the computer. In one embodiment, the mouse selection buttons operate in the same manner as a standard mouse, and may be used to select functions and scroll. Similarly, signals from the joystick control circuit 115 are provided to the driver on the computer to control cursor motion in the same was as a normal joystick”, [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Wallace discloses the mouse component is detachable from the base for maintenance or replacement ([0014]; the mouse portion would be capable of being detached as there is no structure preventing separation).
Regarding claim 8, Wallace discloses A method for converting mouse motion into joystick control signals for video game interaction, comprising: detecting movement of a mouse component over a base; transferring the detected movement to a tube connected to the mouse component; converting the movement of the tube into electronic signals; transmitting the electronic signals to a video game console or computer for controlling game actions ([0014] & [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that Wallace does not explicitly disclose an analog potentiometer to convert motion of the tube into a signal. Grome however, teaches an analog potentiometer to convert motion of a tube into a signal (col. 3, lines 23-34).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Here both Wallace and Grome are directed to joystick input devices. To use the analog potentiometers of Grome as the sensor to determine displacement would be to choose from a well-known identified predictable solution with an reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wallace to use the analog potentiometers of Grome. To do so would enable the designer to use off the shelf parts thereby reducing cost and development time.
Regarding claim 9, Wallace discloses the movement of the mouse component is guided by a rubber sheet to ensure eliminate play between the mouse component and the base component ([0016]).
Regarding claim 10, Wallace discloses the springs or other shock absorbing mechanisms may be substituted to eliminate play between the mouse and base components (“FIG. 3 is a cross section view of the mouse of FIG. 1 illustrating joystick operation of the mouse according to an example embodiment. Bottom portion 135 is separated from top portion 142 in one embodiment by one or more skid pads 310. The skid pads 310 may be attached to one or the other of the bottom portion 135 and top portion 142 and provide a sliding surface to facilitate movement between the top and bottom portions. The skid pads 310 may be formed of a polymer such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) in one embodiment. In further embodiments, the skid pads 310 may be replaced with a lubricant, or the top and bottom surfaces may be formed of two materials such as PTFE that allow desired movement of the surfaces relative to each other”, [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wallace and Grome discloses the analog potentiometer is calibrated to correspond the mouse motion to proportional joystick input values for precise control in the video game (“Joystick portion 115 includes a joystick control circuit 430 that is coupled to joystick 140. Movement of the joystick 140 is interpreted by joystick control circuit 430. Signals from the mouse circuit 425 are provided to a computer to provide signals to applications and other code running on the computer via a driver running on the computer. In one embodiment, the mouse selection buttons operate in the same manner as a standard mouse, and may be used to select functions and scroll. Similarly, signals from the joystick control circuit 115 are provided to the driver on the computer to control cursor motion in the same was as a normal joystick”, Wallace: [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Applicant is directed to the attached “Notice of References Cited” for additional relevant prior art. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to fully review each reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715