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
Applicant has amended the claims to resolve claim objections and 112 rejections thus the objections to Claims 4, 5, 7, 20, 21, and 27 are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Downs lacks a restorative force. Examiner disagrees. Applicant claims “holder is held in place at least partially by the restorative force due to the resilient deformation of the releasable mechanism.” Examiner reads the release member 40 of Downs to retain the lamp base 74 by deflecting the release member 40 backwards and then return to its original position to hold the lamp base 74 in place. According to Downs’ Claim 5, “wherein; a) when the lamp support base is inserted into the first recess and the second recess and the lamp support base slides down and causes the release member to flex backward and when the lamp support base passes the catch, the release member springs forward and the catch slides over a top edge of the lamp support base and the lamp support base is locked from moving vertically by the catch and the lamp support base is locked from moving horizontally and vertically from the holder.” There are restorative forces exerted in two respects where:
a restorative force returns catch 58 to its original location locking the lamp base 74 from vertical movement. If release member 40 had permanently deformed, the catch would not be in place to lock the lamp base 74. The restorative force is responsible for the correct return of the catch. Applicant does not claim any positional, orientational, or directional aspects of how the forces are applied for the structures are “held in place at least partially by the restorative force” according to the claim, and
the restorative force returning catch 58 also locks the lamp support base in place because the lamp support base is pressed between the releasable mechanism and the first and second recesses. This evidences a restorative force because the lamp support base is “locked from moving horizontally and vertically from the holder.” But for the releasable mechanism 40 which can reasonably be assumed to be co-planar in its returned position, there is at least contact between the releasable member 40 and the lamp base 74 such that the lamp base doesn’t translate horizontally and vertically between the structures as least partially by the restorative force.
Thus, for the above reasons the rejection based on Downs is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Change “a7ound” to -- around --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-10, 17-20, 22-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 10,165,851 to Downs.
In Reference to Claim 1
Downs discloses an apparatus 10 (Fig. 1) for mounting devices and tools allowing a user
to keep their hands free (Titl. accessory holder, Col. 1, ll. 11-13, Examiner construes controller as an intended use and the accessory holder of Down to be capable of achieving the intended use.), comprising:
a controller holder (Down describes holding a lamp accessory with a lamp support base 74 (Figs. 4 and 5, Col. 3, ll. 50-51) and
a mount unit 12 for receiving the controller holder (Figs 3 and 5 base member 12), the mount unit being configured to be attached to the user (Fig. 2 showing mount 12 configured with belt B Col. 3, ll. 10-16 so the device can be worn Col. 1, ll. 11-12, 50-55) wherein the controller holder and mount unit are configured to be attached by a resiliently deformable releasable mechanism and the controller holder is held in place at least partially by the restorative force due to the resilient deformation of the releasable mechanism (Figs. 3-5 the mechanism comprises ends of the lamp support base 74 and recesses 26 and 36 of the base member and flexible release member 40 (Fig. 2), where the lamp base 74 slides down and causes release member 40 (Fig. 1) to flex backward (Col. 3, ll. 50-54) and return to hold lamp base 74 in place (Fig. 5).
In Reference to Claim 2
Downs discloses wherein the controller holder 74 further comprises a cut-out for permitting resilient deformation of the controller holder when engaging with the mount unit (cut-outs in the lamp base 74 (Fig. 4) facilitate deflection of release member 40 as lamp base 74 passes through recesses 26 and 36 (Fig. 2)).
In Reference to Claims 4, 5, and 9
Downs discloses wherein the controller holder 74 comprises two substantially separated
longitudinally extending portions {extending members} with rounded locations (Fig. 4 showing the longitudinal structure on the outward edge-side of each cut-out and showing control holder rounded corners).
In Reference to Claim 6
Downs discloses wherein the resiliently deformable releasable mechanism 40 comprises guide members of the lamp base 74 (Fig. 4 showing left and right edges of lamp base 74 which engage the base member 12) for engaging with respective corresponding guide member receiving channels (Fig. 2 recesses 26 and 36).
In Reference to Claim 7
Downs discloses wherein the guide member receiving channels 22/24 and 32/34 each comprise a wall extending from the mount unit 12 for resisting lateral displacement of the guide members of the lamp base 74 (Fig. 2 see also recesses 26 and 36).
In Reference to Claim 10
Downs discloses wherein the guide members are on the controller holder 74 (Fig. 4 outer-edges of lamp base 74) and respective corresponding guide member receiving channels are on the mounting unit (Fig. 2 recesses 26 and 36).
In Reference to Claim 17
Downs invention is capable of the intended use of being mounted on a user’s foot and in so doing the sliding of the lamp base can be construed as being pushed into the mount unit in a direction from heel to toe, when the mount unit is mounted on a user’s foot.
In Reference to Claim 18
Downs discloses wherein the controller holder 74 locks into place at a maximum push
distance as when fully inserted the holder is locked into place by catch member 58 (Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 19
Downs discloses wherein the resiliently deformable mechanism (Fig. 1 and 4) is configured to be loosened, and the controller holder removed from the mounting unit (Fig. 4), by sliding the controller holder in an opposite direction to the direction in which the controller holder is inserted into the mounting unit (Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 20
Down discloses one protrusion (Fig. 4 edges of lamp base 74) for engaging with at least one recess (of the mount base 26 and 36) to hold the controller holder 74 partially in place once inserted to the final stop position in the mount unit 12 (Fig. 4), wherein the at least one protrusion is mounted on the controller holder and the at least one recess is mounted on the mounting unit or vice versa (Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 22
Down discloses a mount plate that is generally rounded concave shape
(Down discloses a head lamp for the forehead (Col. 1, ll. 42). Examiner deems that the belt of Fig. 2 enables other intended uses on other areas of the body e.g., hip, legs, feet, arms.
In Reference to Claim 23
Examiner deem the limitation virtual reality controller to be non-functional descriptive
matter as whether the device held performs any such function or not does not affect any other aspect of the claim and that the lamp attached as in Down demonstrates the retention of a device for the accessory holder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
10. Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,570,249 to Douglas.
Downs discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the controller holder as a cradle for receiving the controller.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the remote control mount of Douglass which can be otherwise function as a cradle for a game controller. According to Douglas, to interface with a controller a mount can be configured with a clip 300 (Fig. 2) wherein the clip is used to accommodate the holding of a game controller. Douglass provides this invention to improve the ergonomics of handling and/or use of remote controls (Col. 1, ll. 20-25, 45-50).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify to lamp base 74 of Downs with the clip of Douglass to achieve the predictable result of allowing a game controller to be worn by a user to free up the hands and improve the ergonomics of remote play of a game. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
11. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs in view of U.S. Pat.No. 5,764,164 to Cartabiano.
Downs discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include that the mount is generally rounded at its corners (Fig. 3). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose
that the mount plate that is generally rounded concave shape. On of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Cartabiano.
Cartabiano teaches of ergonomic designs for hand-attachable controllers that can be worn on the body. According to Fig. 1, the frame member 54 that makes contact with the body of a user is a generally rounded concave shape to comfortably conform to the user while it is worm (Figs. 6, 7, Col. 5, ll. 35-59). Cartabiano invents this approach because “a need exists for an ergonomically designed virtual reality hand-attachable controller which will allow users to use interactive software programs for long periods of time without the accompanying muscle fatigue often encountered with the hand attachments of the prior art (Col. 1, ll. 49-60).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the mount of Downs with the contour of the frame member 54 of Cartabiano to achieve the predictable result of an ergonomic design that reduces muscle fatigue.
12. Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0335843 to Erivantcev.
Down discloses wherein the mount unit further comprises at least one slot for an attachment {foot} strap for a strap (Fig. 2 slot for belt) that passes around the underneath of a user’s foot (the belt can serve the intended use to be wrapped around the foot {ankle} regardless of whether it is called a foot strap, ankle strap, or belt). If Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s claim construction and interpretation of Downs, Applicant is directed to the teachings of Erivantcev.
According to Etivantcev, when playing augmented or mixed reality games ([0056]) a set of tools may be employed to serve as a means of providing input from an input device ([0056]). The input device 100 (Fig. 2) such as a receiver can be incorporated into bands worn on the arms, wrists, feet and ankles ([0058], see also game controller incorporate by reference [0007]).
It would only require routine skill in the art to modify the belt of Downs with the various places such as the feet and ankles to wear an accessory configured to provide game input to achieve the predictable result of providing input from an arm or leg or ankle in the play of a particular title or a game or location and activity in an augmented reality scenario. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 3, 8, and 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Downs does not disclose that the lamp base member deforms to receive a controller before it is inserted into the mount unit; wherein the guide member receiving channels each further comprise an overhang portion for resisting, at least partially, any vertical displacement of the guide members; wherein the controller holder further comprises a retaining member for, in use, engaging with a control input of a pressable button of a controller and holding the controller within the controller holder, or of openings for sensors or cameras; and wherein the controller holder channel narrows between the first and the second end or of a greater.
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
17. 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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715