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 § 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 to 3 and 5 to 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Couch, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,749,577 A).
As to Claim 1: Couch teaches an optical joystick apparatus (abstract; 3:34-4:13, Claim 1), comprising a housing (housing 24, Figs. 1 to 3) and a joystick (14, Figs. 1 to 3), wherein a PCB board is provided in the housing, and a light-emitting element and a photosensitive element are provided on the PCB board (four pairs each of LED emitters 24a and photodiodes 24b, Figs. 1 to 3, 3:47-4:27), wherein the joystick is rotatably connected to the housing (Figs. 1 to 3), a lower part of the joystick extends into the housing (Figs. 1 to 3) and is provided with a light-shielding portion, and the light-emitting element and the photosensitive element are arranged on two sides (four sides including four pairs of emitters 24a and photodiodes 24b, Figs. 2 and 3) of the light-shielding portion (light shielding in that the bottom reflective portion increases or decreases the reflected light from the emitters to the photodiodes according to the angle of the joystick, 3:62-4:16), respectively.
As to Claim 2: Couch teaches wherein the joystick is provided with a spherical component, and the housing is provided with a spherical slotted hole that matches the spherical component (spherical base of joystick, Fig. 3; slotted hole, Fig. 1; 3:34-4:13).
As to Claim 3: Couch teaches wherein the housing comprises a top housing and a bottom housing, and the spherical slotted hole is provided in the top housing (housing 12, Fig. 1; housing with top and bottom shown at Fig. 3; 3:34-4:13).
As to Claim 5: Couch teaches wherein a return spring is sleeved on the joystick on the upper side of the light-shielding portion (spring 16 inside joystick handle 14, Figs. 1 & 3, 3:34-4:13), and the return spring has an upper end pressing against or fixed to an inner surface of the top of the housing (Figs. 1 and 3), and a lower end pressing against or fixed to an upper end of the light-shielding portion (Figs. 1 and 3).
As to Claim 6: Couch teaches wherein the housing is provided with a limiting structure that limits a swing range of the joystick (spherical base of joystick, Fig. 3; slotted hole or square-shaped limiting structure, Fig. 1; 3:34-4:13).
As to Claim 7: Couch teaches wherein the limiting structure is formed by the upward extension of the spherical slotted hole (upward extension of spherical slotted hole, Fig. 3, allowing the spherical portion of the base of the joystick to move in the X and Y axes, limited in motion as discussed above regarding Claim 6), or by a protruding rim extending upward from the top of the housing. That these limitations are cited in the alternative reduces their patentable weight.
As to Claim 8: Couch teaches wherein the spherical component and the joystick use a split connection structure or an integrally formed structure (the joystick handle and the spherical base of the joystick as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 are an integral structure, 3:34=-4:13); and when the split connection structure is used, the joystick is provided with a limiting protrusion that limits a downward movement of the joystick.
As to Claim 9: Couch teaches wherein there are two pairs, four pairs or eight pairs of light-emitting elements and photosensitive elements (four pairs each of LED emitters 24a and photodiodes 24b, Figs. 1 to 3, 3:47-4:27). That these limitations are cited in the alternative reduces their patentable weight.
As to Claim 10: Couch teaches wherein the light-shielding portion and the joystick use a split connection structure with an interference fit, or a split connection structure with a thread fit, or a split connection structure with a snap fit, or an integrally formed structure (the joystick 14 including the spherical base portion is shown as an integrated structure, Figs. 1 to 3). That these limitations are cited in the alternative reduces their patentable weight.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couch in view of Andresen (U.S. Patent 4,733,214 A).
As to Claim 4: Couch discloses all of the limitations of these claims but lacks specificity as to wherein the top housing and the bottom housing are connected through a snap-fitting structure or screws. Andresen, however, teaches this limitation at Fig. 5. There is an upper body portion 54 attached to a lower body portion 53 with screws 55 (6:21-35; see also Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Andresen’s screw-fastened joystick case to the joystick of Couch. Andresen’s joystick has a vertical joystick handle with a spherical base (Figs. 5 and 6, 6:21-35), similar to Couch as discussed above. The two references are thus similar in field of use and mode of operation. The advantage of this modification would be to allow the joystick to be easily repaired since the body could be screwed open or closed; joystick cases that snap together or use proprietary fasteners would be harder to repair, requiring special tools or to be sent to a repair depot. This would allow easy repair locally by the game device owner.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin, et al. (U.S. Patent 9,345,969 B2) teach oppositely mounted photoemitters and photoreceivers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M..
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.
/M.D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights