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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 18-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 5-6, 8, 11, 18-19, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2004/0221243 A1 to Twerdahl et al. (hereinafter Twerdahl) in view of US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana (hereinafter Obana ‘668).
Concerning claim 1,
Twerdahl discloses an information processing device comprising: one or more processors having hardware (0027, 0031), wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising:
causing a menu screen to be presented in a user interface of a display device, wherein the menu screen comprises a plurality of icons and a focus display element at a first position of a first icon of the plurality of icons, wherein the focus display element indicates that the first icon is in a selected state (0021-0022);
receiving directional input transmitted from an input device that is communicatively coupled to the information processing device (0021-0022);
moving, based on the directional input, the focus display element from the first position to a second position of a second icon of the plurality of icons (0021-0022); and
while the focus display element is positioned at the second position, executing an application associated with the second icon (0021-0022).
Twerdahl discloses tactile feedback while interacting, navigating, and selecting menu display items (0021-0022, 0027, 0029).
Twerdahl does not clearly disclose concurrently with moving the focus display element, causing a left-side vibrator of a left-side holding part of the input device and/or a right-side vibrator of a right-side holding part of the input device to vibrate according to the moving of the focus display element.
Obana ‘668 teaches concurrently with moving the focus display element, causing a left-side vibrator of a left-side holding part of the input device and/or a right-side vibrator of a right-side holding part of the input device to vibrate according to the moving of the focus display element (0049-0051, wherein a focus is considered to be equivalent to the object described in the art).
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 haptic feedback mechanism of Obana ‘668 with the menu navigation apparatus of Twerdahl as both disclose haptic feedback outputs based on user inputs. Incorporating the left/right vibration mechanism of Obana ‘668 would allow the user to feel tactile feedback directionally while navigating the menu of Twerdahl, improving the user’s experience.
Concerning claim 2,
Obana ‘668 teaches causing the left-side vibrator and/or the right-side vibrator to vibrate according to a moving direction of the focus display element. (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 3,
Obana ‘668 teaches causing the left-side vibrator to vibrate in a case where the focus display element is moved to a left direction in the menu screen and cause the right-side vibrator to vibrate in a case where the focus display element is moved to a right direction in the menu screen (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 5,
Obana ‘668 teaches causing the left-side vibrator to vibrate at a first vibration intensity according to a position to which the focus display element is moved; and causing the right-side vibrator to vibrate at a second vibration intensity according to the position (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 6,
Obana ‘668 teaches when the focus display element is moved to a left direction in the menu screen, increasing the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator and decreasing the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator; and when the focus display element is moved to a right direction in the menu screen, increasing the second vibration intensity of the right- side vibrator and decreasing the first vibration intensity of the left-side vibrator (0049-0051, 0100-0108).
Concerning claim 8,
Twerdahl discloses arranging the focus display element at one selected display element among a plurality of display elements displayed in the user interface; and moving the focus display element to another display element based on the directional input (0021-0022).
Concerning claim 11, 18-19, 21-22, and 24, see the rejection of claim 1-3, 5-6, and 8 respectively.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2004/0221243 A1 to Twerdahl et al. in view of US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana and further in view of US Publication 2017/0361223 A1 to Gohara (hereinafter Gohara).
Concerning claim 4,
Gohara teaches causing the left-side vibrator and the right-side vibrator to vibrate at a first vibration intensity in a case where the focus display element is moved to an upper direction in the menu screen; and causing 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 display element is moved to a lower direction in the menu 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 haptic feedback mechanism of Gohara with the menu navigation apparatus of Twerdahl as both disclose haptic feedback outputs based on user inputs. Incorporating the up/down vibration mechanism of Gohara would allow the user to feel tactile feedback directionally while navigating the menu of Twerdahl, improving the user’s experience.
Concerning claim 7,
Gohara teaches when the focus display element is moved to an upper direction in the menu screen, increasing the first vibration intensity of the left- side vibrator and the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator; and when the focus display element is moved to a lower direction in the menu screen, decreasing the first vibration intensity of the left- side vibrator and the second vibration intensity of the right-side vibrator (0198-0199).
Gohara teaches two controllers with two vibrational motors which can either increase or decrease in strength as up/down direction is inputted. There are only 4 vibrational behaviors possible for the 2 controllers in response to the up/down input (increase/increase, increase/decrease, decrease/increase, decrease/decrease). For this reason, it would have been obvious to try to increase the intensity of the right and left vibration motors when an up input is entered, and decrease the intensity of the right and left vibration motors when a down input is entered.
Concerning claim 20 and 23, see the rejection of claim 4 and 7 respectively.
Claim(s) 9 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2004/0221243 A1 to Twerdahl et al. in view of US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana and further in view of US Publication 2015/0263685 A1 to Obana (hereinafter Obana ‘685).
Concerning claim 9,
Obana ‘685 teaches arranging a slider indicating a selected position as the focus display element on a bar presented in the user interface (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 menu navigation apparatus of Twerdahl as both disclose haptic feedback outputs based on user inputs. Adding the slider of Obana ‘685 to the menu navigation apparatus of Twerdahl would allow for greater functionality to the graphical user element by providing a visual indicator to display the selected position of volume magnitude.
Concerning claim 25, see the rejection of claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2004/0221243 A1 to Twerdahl et al. in view of US Publication 2015/0209668 A1 to Obana and further in view of US Publication 2016/0007095 A1 to Lacroix (hereinafter Lacroix).
Concerning claim 10,
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 the haptic feedback mechanism of Lacroix with the menu navigation apparatus of Twerdahl as both disclose haptic feedback outputs based on user inputs. Incorporating the vibration mechanism across multiple devices mechanism of Lacroix into the menu navigation apparatus of Twerdahl would allow for users with a second screen to have consideration of the additional device, improving the user’s experience.
Concerning claim 26, see the rejection of claim 10.
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 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
Prosecution Insights