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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “rapid” or “rapidly” in claims 11, 17, and 18 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “rapid” and “rapidly” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
The following claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a non-structural term, which is not preceded by a structural modifier, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function:
a detection unit configured to detect (claim 1);
a guidance unit configured to adjust a tension level (claim 1); and
a tensioning unit configured to selectively provide a counter-force (claim 4).
Because these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claims 1-13 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0283602 to Battlogg (hereinafter Battlogg).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 19, Battlogg teaches a system, along with a method and computer readable medium therefor, for providing tactile navigation guidance in a video game environment, the system comprising:
a detection unit configured to detect at least part of surroundings of a player in the game environment (e.g., the virtual game is walking up a staircase or standing in front of a door or wall in ¶ 13); and
a guidance unit configured to adjust a tension level of at least one variable tension input on a controller (e.g., at least one magnetorheological brake device and at least one control device for controlling the brake device, wherein the brake device is coupled to the at least one pivot axle in order to dampen at least one pivoting movement of the operator control lever in a manner controlled by the control device in ¶ 6), wherein the adjustment is made in dependence on the result of detection by the detection unit so as to indicate to a user at least a subset of the detected surroundings through the controller (e.g., “If the virtual gamer, moved by the joystick, is standing in front of a door or wall, then the actuation force increases as far as the end stop (high actuation force or high pivoting moment at the actuation lever)” in ¶ 13).
Regarding claim 2, Battlogg teaches wherein the detection unit is configured to detect presence of obstacles proximate to the player in the video game (e.g., by detecting a door or wall in ¶ 13).
Regarding claim 3, Battlogg teaches wherein the detection unit is configured to detect a spatial distribution of obstacles proximate to the player (e.g., stairs in ¶ 13 or hills in ¶ 15), and the adjustment of the tension level is made at least in partial dependence on the detected spatial distribution (e.g., a ripple effect is applied to the joystick; see ¶¶ 13 and 15).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Battlogg teaches wherein at least one variable tension input is connected to a tensioning unit configured to selectively provide a counter-force in a direction opposite to a direction of actuation of the input (e.g., the brake device is coupled to the at least one pivot axle in order to dampen at least one pivoting movement of the operator control lever in ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 5, Battlogg teaches wherein the guidance unit is configured to adjust the variable tension of the input by controlling a signal to the tensioning unit (e.g., it is possible for damping curves, which describe the retardation moment as a function of the pivot angle and/or the time, to be set and dynamically varied in ¶ 26).
Regarding claim 6, Battlogg teaches a controller for controlling the video game, the controller having at the least one input with variable tension (e.g., a joystick for use in video games in ¶¶ 12-13).
Regarding claim 7, Battlogg teaches wherein the controller comprises at least one directional input, and the detection unit is configured to detect the surroundings of the player in a direction indicated by the at least one directional input (e.g., “If the virtual gamer, moved by the joystick, is standing in front of a door or wall, then the actuation force increases as far as the end stop (high actuation force or high pivoting moment at the actuation lever)” in ¶ 13).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Battlogg teaches wherein the guidance unit is configured to rapidly adjust the tension of at least one variable tension input so as to simulate a tactile click to the user (e.g., a ripple operating mode in Fig. 6 or a kick down operating mode in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 12, Battlogg teaches wherein the guidance unit is configured to simulate tactile clicks at a periodic frequency, and the periodic frequency is adjusted according to the detected obstacles proximate to the player (e.g., a ripple operating mode in accordance with the environment, such as a hard ripple when driving on fields or hills in ¶ 15, which corresponds to obstacles proximate to the player).
Regarding claim 16, Battlogg teaches wherein the step of detecting surroundings of the player comprises: detecting a directional input from the controller (e.g., the joystick being used to input direction controls); associating the directional input to a direction relative to the player in the game environment, and detecting the presence of obstacles proximate to the player in the associated direction in the game environment (e.g., detecting the wall or door that is obstructing the player in ¶ 13).
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.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Battlogg teaches the invention substantially as described above, including a variable level of resistance imparted on a game input device, but lacks in explicitly teaching the simulation of a tactile click when the player is oriented in a direction which is clear of obstacles. Battlogg expressly teaches that the level of force feedback or resistance may be varied according to the existence of obstacles, such as walls, doors, stairs, hills, etc. that the virtual player faces or travels across (see at least ¶ 13 and 15). However, Battlogg does not expressly teach what happens when the player is clear of such obstacles, such as when a door is opened to allow passage or when the player begins to traverse a smooth path after having been on a rough path. Regardless, Battlogg makes clear that the feedback or resistance is intended to simulate a virtual environment. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Battlogg to include a tactile click to indicate that the player has transitioned to a direction that is clear of obstacles in order to reflect the transition from a rougher or more obstacle-prone area to a smooth or clear path forward in order to accurately communicate the change in virtual environment.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg in view of US 2018/0345136 to Schmitz et al. (hereinafter Schmitz).
Regarding claims 8-10, Battlogg teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching a plurality of input devices and wherein the input device(s) comprises a trigger arranged for actuation by the user through rotation about an axis. In a related disclosure, Schmitz teaches an input device with sector geared feedback triggers (abstract). Schmitz teaches a plurality of trigger input devices (e.g., left trigger 112A and right trigger 112B in ¶ 28 and Fig. 1), each of which is a variable tension input (e.g., by applying a torque, linear force, or adjustable tension in ¶ 23) that comprises a trigger arranged for actuation by the user through rotation about an axis (e.g., “Each of the triggers 112 may be configured to pivot about a trigger axis between an extended posture and a retracted posture” in ¶ 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Battlogg to include the controller structure having a variety of input devices, including a plurality of variable tension trigger devices, as taught by Schmitz in order to beneficially increase the number and type of games and game aspects that may be controlled by a player in a realistic manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights