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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana (hereinafter Obana ‘668).
Concerning claim 1,
Obana ‘668 discloses an information processing device that is connected, in a wireless or wired manner (0138), to an input device including a left-side holding part having a left-side vibrator and a right-side holding part having a right-side vibrator (0100-0108), the information processing device comprising:
one or more processors having hardware, wherein the one or more processors arrange a focus in a screen, receive directional input transmitted from the input device (0125), move the focus on a basis of the received directional input, and cause the left-side vibrator and/or the right-side vibrator to vibrate according to the movement of the focus (0049-0051, wherein a focus is considered to be equivalent to the object described in the art).
Concerning claim 2,
Obana ‘668 discloses one or more processors cause the left-side vibrator and/or the right-side vibrator to vibrate according to a moving direction of the focus (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 3,
Obana ‘668 discloses one or more processors cause the left-side vibrator to vibrate in a case where the focus is moved to a left direction in the screen and cause the right-side vibrator to vibrate in a case where the focus is moved to a right direction in the screen (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 5,
Obana ‘668 discloses one or more processors cause the left-side vibrator to vibrate at a first vibration intensity according to a position to which the focus is moved, and cause the right-side vibrator to vibrate at a second vibration intensity according to the position (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 6,
Obana ‘668 discloses the more the focus is moved to a left direction in the screen, the higher the one or more processors set the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator and the lower the one or more processors set the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator, and the more the focus is moved to a right direction in the screen, the higher the one or more processors set the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator and the lower the one or more processors set the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 8,
Obana ‘668 discloses one or more processors arrange the focus at one selected display element among a plurality of display elements displayed on the screen and move the focus to another display element on the basis of the received directional input (0088-0091, Figure 5).
Concerning claim 11,
Obana ‘668 discloses a method of controlling vibration of a vibrator in an information processing device that is connected, in a wireless or wired manner (0138), to an input device including a left-side holding part having a left-side vibrator and a right-side holding part having a right-side vibrator (0100-0108), the method comprising:
arranging a focus in a screen; receiving directional input transmitted from the input device (0125); moving the focus on a basis of the received directional input; and causing the left-side vibrator and/or the right-side vibrator to vibrate according to the movement of the focus (0049-0051).
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana in view of US Publication 2017/0361223 A1 to Gohara (hereinafter Gohara).
Concerning claim 4,
Obana ‘668 does not disclose one or more processors cause the left-side vibrator and the right-side vibrator to vibrate at a first vibration intensity in a case where the focus is moved to an upper direction in the screen, and cause the left-side vibrator and the right-side vibrator to vibrate at a second vibration intensity different from the first vibration intensity in a case where the focus is moved to a lower direction in the screen.
Gohara teaches one or more processors cause the left-side vibrator and the right-side vibrator to vibrate at a first vibration intensity in a case where the focus is moved to an upper direction in the screen, and cause the left-side vibrator and the right-side vibrator to vibrate at a second vibration intensity different from the first vibration intensity in a case where the focus is moved to a lower direction in the screen (0198-0199).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vibration feedback based on an object moving in the up-down direction as described in Gohara in the haptic apparatus described in Obana ‘668 to create a haptic feedback controller with improved directional feedback.
Concerning claim 7,
Obana ‘668 does not disclose the more the focus is moved to an upper direction in the screen, the higher the one or more processors set the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator and the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator, and the more the focus is moved to a lower direction in the screen, the lower the one or more processors set the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator and the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator.
Gohara teaches the more the focus is moved to an upper direction in the screen, the higher the one or more processors set the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator and the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator, and the more the focus is moved to a lower direction in the screen, the lower the one or more processors set the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator and the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator (0198-0199).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vibration feedback based on an object moving in the up-down direction as described in Gohara in the haptic apparatus described in Obana ‘668 to create a haptic feedback controller with improved directional feedback.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana in view of US Publication 2015/0263685 A1 to Obana (hereinafter Obana ‘685).
Concerning claim 9,
Obana ‘668 does not disclose one or more processors arrange a slider indicating a selected position as a focus on a bar displayed on the screen.
Obana ‘685 teaches one or more processors arrange a slider indicating a selected position as a focus on a bar displayed on the screen (0058, 0060, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the slider as described in Obana ‘685 in the haptic apparatus described in Obana ‘668 as the slider would be a reasonable visual indicator to display the movement of the object.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana in view of US Publication 2016/0007095 A1 to Lacroix (hereinafter Lacroix).
Concerning claim 10,
Obana ‘668 does not disclose one or more processors differentiate a maximum value of a vibration intensity of the vibrators applied when the focus is moved on a first screen from a maximum value of the vibration intensity of the vibrators applied when the focus is moved on a second screen.
Lacroix teaches one or more processors differentiate a maximum value of a vibration intensity of the vibrators applied when the focus is moved on a first screen from a maximum value of the vibration intensity of the vibrators applied when the focus is moved on a second screen (0068-0071).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second screen consideration when considering haptic feedback as described in Lacroix to the haptic apparatus described in Obana ‘668 to improve the fidelity of haptic feedback to an object as it moves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715