DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lines 6-7 recites the limitation “the lower component being tiltable together with the upper component”. However, the original claim limitation recited “the lower component being tilted together with the upper component” and the specification, page 1 lines 15-16, reads “The lower component is provided below the upper component and tiled together with the upper component”. The phrase “tilted with the upper component” requires the lower component to tilt with the upper component, while the phrase “tiltable with the upper component” allows the lower component to either tilt with or not tilt with the upper component. The amendment extends the scope of the claim beyond the original disclosure, and is therefore considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1-4, 10-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 20200097037 A1), hereinafter Asano ‘037, in view of Asano (US 20150198964 A1), hereinafter Asano ‘964.
Regarding claim 1, Asano ‘037 discloses a direction input device (see Fig. 1) comprising: a tiltable input portion (400, 500), the input portion including an upper component (400) including a user-operable surface at a top of the upper component (see paragraph [0062], wherein attaching hole 440 is for a disk-like key top), and the upper component being configured to be tilted (see Fig. 17), a lower component (500) positioned below the upper component, the lower component being tiltable together with the upper component (see Fig. 17), and a biasing portion (600) positioned between the upper component and the lower component, and the biasing portion being configured to bias the upper component and the lower component away from one another (see Fig. 8); a base (130, 131) configured to be pressed against by the input portion, and the base being shaped such that biasing force applied by the biasing portion to the lower component biases the input portion back to an initial position when the input portion is tilted away from the initial position (see paragraph [0091], wherein when the pressing of the operation shaft 400 is released, the operation shaft 400 returns to the neutral state together with the actuating member 500 while the flat lower surface 512 of the downward convex spherical trapezoidal portion 510 of the actuating member 500 is returned to the horizontal state by the biasing force of the compression coil spring 600); a first slide portion (300) configured to slide in a first direction (X1, X2) when the input portion is tilted away from the initial position in the first direction, the first slide portion including a first hole (310), the input portion extending through the first hole, and the first hole extending in a second direction (Y1, Y2) perpendicular to the first direction; a second slide portion (200) configured to slide in the second direction when the input portion is tilted away from the initial position in the second direction, the second slide portion including a second hole (210), the input portion extending through the second hole above the first slide portion, and the second hole extending in the first direction; a first slid surface (bottom surface of 200; see Fig. 8 wherein 300 is shown in direct contact with the bottom surface of 200), the first slide portion being configured to slide against the first slid surface, and the first slid surface having a curved and concave shape (see Fig. 1); and a second slid surface (121a, 121b), the second slide portion being configured to slide against the second slid surface (see paragraph [0048], wherein the cover 120 is provided with a pair of left and right guide holes 121a and 121b for moving the upper arm 200 in an arc shape), the second slid surface having a curved and concave shape (see paragraph [0049], wherein the left and right guide holes 121a and 121b are upward convex, bow-shaped notches). Asano ‘037 fails to disclose the first slide portion pressed against the first slid surface by the biasing portion and the second slide portion pressed against the second slid surface by the biasing portion. However, Asano ‘964 teaches the first slide portion (200a) pressed against the first slid surface (see Fig. 2A and 2B; bottom surface of 200b) from below by the upper component (100), and the second slide portion (200b) pressed against the second slid surface (432b) from below by the upper component (100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Asano ‘037 with first and second slide portions being pressed from below by the upper component, as taught by Asano ‘964, to reduce and/or eliminate any play between the sliding surfaces by maintaining proper contact via the biasing member, therefore reducing any noise and associated wear generated during operation. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the first slide portion (Asano ‘037, 300) pressed against the first slid surface (Asano ‘037, bottom surface of 200) from below by the upper component (Asano ‘037, 400) that is biased away from the lower component (Asano ‘037, 500) by the biasing portion (Asano ‘037, 600) and the second slide portion (Asano ‘037, 200) pressed against the second slid surface (Asano ‘037, 121a, 121b) from below by the upper component (Asano ‘037, 400) that is biased away from the lower component (Asano ‘037, 500) by the biasing portion (Asano ‘037, 600).
Regarding claim 2, Asano ‘037 discloses a guide portion (900) configured to guide sliding of the first slide portion (300) from below (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Asano discloses the guide portion (900) includes a guide surface (910), the first slide portion (300) being configured to slide against the guide surface (see Fig. 13), and a center of curvature of the guide surface being concentric with a center of curvature of the first slid surface (see annotated Fig. 8 below, wherein circle A shows the curvature of 300, which is the same as the curvature of guide surface 900, and circle B shows the curvature of slid surface on the bottom of 200. As can be seen from the annotated figure, circles A and B are concentric).
Regarding claim 4, Asano ‘037 discloses the guide portion (900) is configured to be pressed down by the first slide portion (300) to function as a switch (see Fig. 9, wherein guide portion 900 engages pressing switch 1200).
Regarding claim 10, Asano ‘037 discloses a module housing (100), the first slide portion (300) and the second slide portion (200) being positioned in the module housing (see Fig. 2 and 3), wherein the second slid surface (121a, 121b) is formed on an interior surface of the module housing (see Fig. 1) and the first slid surface (bottom surface of 200) is formed on a lower surface of the second slide portion (200).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Asano ‘037 in view of Asano ‘964 discloses a controller (Asano ‘037, Fig. 1) comprising: a controller housing (Asano ‘037, Fig. 2, 100); and the direction input device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) positioned at least partly in the controller housing (see Fig. 2); wherein the second slid surface (Asano ‘037, 121a, 121b) is partially spherically shaped (see paragraph [0049], wherein the left and right guide holes 121a and 121b are upward convex, bow-shaped notches) such that the input portion is tiltalbe with respect to a virtual center (see paragraph [0048], wherein the cover 120 is provided with a pair of left and right guide holes 121a and 121b for moving the upper arm 200 in an arc shape; note that the arc shape has an inherent virtual center). Asano ‘037 in view of Asano ‘964 fail to disclose the virtual center is located outside of the controller housing or the virtual center is located outside of the direction input device and inside of the controller housing. However, it is well known in the art that a slid surface with a large radius of curvature results in a virtual center that is farther away from the direction input device, while a slid surface with a small radius of curvature results in a virtual center that is closer to the direction input device. The radius of curvature directly affects the speed of which the input portion is tilted. More specifically, a small radius of curvature results in a fast tilt speed, while a large radius of curvature results in a slow tilt speed. As such, the radius of curvature of the slid surface is considered to be a result effective variable which can be adjusted to change the speed of tilt of the input portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide the particular claimed dimensions and ratios thereof, i.e., radius of curvature of the slid surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 14, Asano ‘037 discloses the second slid surface (121a, 121b ) is formed on an interior surface of the controller housing (100) and the first slid surface (bottom surface of 200) is formed on a lower surface of the second slide portion (200).
Regarding claim 15, Asano ‘037 discloses the biasing portion (600) is a coil spring (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Asano ‘037 discloses the second slide portion (200) further comprises an upper surface (upper surface of 200 including 230a, 230b) that faces the second slid surface (121a, 121b), and the second hole being formed through the upper surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Asano ‘037 discloses the module housing (100) further comprises a shaft through hole (121) formed through the interior surface of the module housing (see Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - US 20200097037 A1 Fig. 8 Annotated
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025, with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Asano ‘037 in view of Asano ‘964 fails to teach “a first slid surface, the first slide portion being configured to slide against the first slid surface when pressed against the first slid surface from below by the upper component that is biased away from the lower component by the biasing portion” and “a second slid surface, the second slide portion being configured to slide against the second slid surface when pressed against the second slid surface from below by the upper component that is biased away from the lower component by the biasing portion”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection of claim 1 above relies on Asano ‘037 for teaching the upper component being biased away from the lower component by the biasing portion. As can be seen in Asano ‘037, the upper component 400 and lower component 500 are biased away from each other by biasing portion 600. The rejection of claim 1 also relies on Asano ‘964 for teaching the pressing of the slide portions against the respective slid surfaces from below by the upper component. As can be seen in Asano ‘964, the upper component 100 presses upward on the slide portions 200a, 200b via support 122. Asano ‘037 and Asano ‘964 in combination disclose “a first slid surface, the first slide portion being configured to slide against the first slid surface when pressed against the first slid surface from below by the upper component that is biased away from the lower component by the biasing portion” and “a second slid surface, the second slide portion being configured to slide against the second slid surface when pressed against the second slid surface from below by the upper component that is biased away from the lower component by the biasing portion”. Note that “the test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that if the operation shaft 400 of Asano ‘037 was modified to press the lower arm against something above, the spherical trapezoidal portion 410 would no longer press against the receiving surface 112a, and the device would no longer function as a multi-directional input device, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0036] of Asano ‘037 reads “a receiving portion 112 for rotatably supporting the lower end of the operation shaft 400 while also serving to prevent the operation shaft 400 from coming off”, while paragraph [0083] of Asano ‘964 reads “the support 122 of the slidable part 120 abuts on the abuttable face 230a of the first interlocking member 200a, thereby preventing the operation lever 100 from dropping off in the Z1 direction”. Both Asano ‘037 and Asano ‘964 use a projection provided on the first component, 410 and 121 respectively, to hold the first component within the housing. Therefore, modifying Asano ‘037 with the arrangement of ‘964 would not render Asano ‘037 inoperable for its intended purpose.
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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618