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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 4/16/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending, Claim 18 is canceled, Claims 19-21 are newly added, and Claims 1-3 and 17 are currently amended.
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tallarico (US 2021/0038998).
Claim 19: Tallarico discloses a cradle (10) for supporting input devices (30), the cradle comprising: rear support parts; front support parts; and side support parts that are positioned outside in a left-right direction with respect to the rear support parts and the front support parts, wherein the side support parts are curved in such a manner as to swell outward in the left-right direction in plan view, and are connected to the front support parts and the rear support parts (Figs. 2a-3h, 5a-f, ¶ 30, 35, 65, see below screenshot).
PNG
media_image1.png
667
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolff (US D312968 S).
Claim 1: Wolff teaches a cradle for supporting input devices having grips and tracked parts extending from the grips, the cradle comprising: rear support parts that are capable of supporting the grips at a connection point between rear parts and tracked parts of the grips; front support parts that are positioned forward away from the rear support parts and are capable of supporting the grips at a connection point between front parts of the grips and the tracked parts; and side support parts that are positioned outside in a left-right direction with respect to the rear support parts and the front support parts and are capable of supporting the tracked parts (see below screenshots, Figs. 1-14).
The examiner takes the position that recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention such as for example, “for supporting input devices having grips and tracked parts extending from the grips…are capable of supporting the grips at a connection point between rear parts and tracked parts of the grips; …. are capable of supporting the grips at a connection point between front parts of the grips and the tracked parts; and …. are capable of supporting the tracked parts” must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971), In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959), and MPEP 2114). As understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation the container of Wolff meets the structure as claimed and would be capable of the desire function.
PNG
media_image2.png
265
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
548
994
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Wolff teaches a cradle for supporting input devices having grips and tracked parts extending from the grips, the cradle comprising: rear support parts that are capable of supporting rear parts of the grips; front support parts that are capable of supporting front parts of the grips; and side support parts that are positioned outside in a left-right direction with respect to the rear support parts and the front support parts, wherein the side support parts are curved in such a manner as to swell outward in the left-right direction in plan view, are connected to the front support parts and the rear support parts, and are capable of supporting the tracked parts (see below screenshots, Figs. 1-14).
PNG
media_image2.png
265
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
548
994
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner takes the position that recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention such as for example, “for supporting input devices having grips and tracked parts extending from the grips, the cradle comprising: …. that are capable of supporting rear parts of the grips; … that are capable of supporting front parts of the grips; and … are capable of supporting the tracked parts” must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971), In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959), and MPEP 2114). As understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation the container of Wolff meets the structure as claimed and would be capable of the desire function.
Claim 3: Wolff teaches wherein the front support parts are positioned forward from the rear support parts (see below screenshot).
PNG
media_image3.png
548
994
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5: Wolff teaches wherein a recessed part is formed between the rear support parts and the front support parts (Figs. 1-2).
Claims 6-7: Wolff teaches wherein an opening is formed at a bottom part of the recessed part (Figs. 1-14).
Claim 8: Wolff teaches wherein the side support parts connect the rear support parts to the front support parts, and are curved in such a manner as to swell outward in the left-right direction in plan view of the cradle (Figs. 1-3).
Claims 9-10: Wolff teaches a cradle right part that includes the rear support parts and the side support parts and supports an input device for a right hand that is one of the input devices; and a cradle left part that includes the rear support parts and the side support parts and supports an input device for a left hand that is another one of the input devices (see below screenshot, Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
552
1151
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner takes the position that recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention such as for example, “…. supports an input device for a right hand that is one of the input devices; and …. supports an input device for a left hand that is another one of the input devices” must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971), In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959), and MPEP 2114). As understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation the container of Wolff meets the structure as claimed and would be capable of the desire function.
Claims 11-12: Wolff teaches wherein the side support parts have support surfaces inclined in such a manner as to be lowered toward a center in the left-right direction (Figs. 1-3).
Claims 13-14: Wolff teaches wherein the rear support parts and the front support parts are formed such that the grips are obliquely arranged in plan view of the input devices and the cradle (Figs. 1-3).
The examiner takes the position that recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention such as for example, “…. such that the grips are obliquely arranged in plan view of the input devices and the cradle” must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971), In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959), and MPEP 2114). As understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation the container of Wolff meets the structure as claimed and would be capable of the desire function.
Claims 15-16: Wolff teaches wherein the cradle right part and the cradle left part are annular as a whole (Figs. 1-3).
Claim 19: Wolff discloses a cradle for supporting input devices, the cradle comprising: rear support parts; front support parts; and side support parts that are positioned outside in a left-right direction with respect to the rear support parts and the front support parts, wherein the side support parts are curved in such a manner as to swell outward in the left-right direction in plan view, and are connected to the front support parts and the rear support parts (see screenshots, Figs. 1-14).
The examiner takes the position that recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention such as for example, “for supporting input devices” must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971), In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959), and MPEP 2114). As understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation the container of Wolff meets the structure as claimed and would be capable of the desire function.
PNG
media_image2.png
265
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
548
994
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 20-21 allowed are allowed in view of the applicant’s amendments and/or arguments filed 4/16/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
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 TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
