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 § 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.
Claims 11-13, 15-18, 20-21, 32-34, 36-40, and 107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frei (DE 102012202967, published 8/29/13; machine translation provided) in view of Fyke et al. (US 2008/0231601) and Mikhailov (US 2012/0258800).
Regarding claim 11, Frei discloses a method comprising: receiving an indication of an adjustment of a value caused by a movement of a rotary device (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, rotary knob 3 for adjusting air-conditioning system disclosed; see also ¶ 1-11);
determining a thermal haptic feedback temperature based at least in part on the indication of the adjustment of the value (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, temperature of the knob is a function of the temperature selected by a user; see also ¶ 1-11);
and controlling a temperature actuating element in the rotary device to provide thermal haptic feedback palpable at a surface of the rotary device by causing the temperature actuating element to provide a temperature output based on the thermal haptic feedback temperature (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, temperature of the knob is a function of the temperature selected by a user; Peltier device disclosed; see also ¶ 1-11).
Frei fails to explicitly disclose activation of a touch sensor array in response to a movement of a trackball; determining an environmental temperature; and determining a thermal haptic feedback temperature based at least in part on the determined environmental temperature.
Fyke teaches activation of a touch sensor array in response to a movement of a trackball (figs. 1-2, figs. 7-8, ¶ 18-21, rotary input device may be a trackball, contact detector disposed concentrically around trackball).
Frei and Fyke are both directed to input devices utilizing rotary input. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Frei with the trackball of Fyke since such a modification provides the advantages of a trackball and provides continuous gesturing such as scrolling (Fyke, ¶ 4).
Mikhailov teaches determining an environmental temperature; and determining a thermal haptic feedback temperature based at least in part on the determined environmental temperature (¶ 121-124, temperature sensor detects ambient temperature; surface is heated when the ambient temperature is cold and cooled when the ambient temperature is hot).
Frei in view of Fyke and Mikhailov are both directed to thermal haptic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Frei in view of Fyke with the thermal haptic feedback of Mikhailov since such a modification provides a more comfortable experience to the user (Mikhailov, ¶ 121).
Regarding claim 12, Frei discloses receiving markup instructions comprising pixel color and corresponding temperature data, wherein determining of a temperature setting for a pixel is performed according to the corresponding temperature data, wherein the pixel indicates the thermal haptic feedback temperature (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, status of the settings of the air-conditioning system shown on display device; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 13, Frei discloses wherein the adjustment of the value caused by the movement of the trackball is indicated on a display logically connected to the trackball (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, status of the settings of the air-conditioning system shown on display device; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 15, Frei discloses wherein the temperature actuating element is a Peltier device positioned at a center of a touchpad of the trackball (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, Peltier device disclosed; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 16, Frei discloses wherein the temperature actuating element is a Peltier device positioned in the trackball and in physical contact with a heatsink (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, Peltier device disclosed; see also ¶ 1-11).
Frei fails to explicitly disclose a heatsink. However, Examiner takes official notice that the use of a heatsink with a Peltier device is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Frei with the well-known heatsink since such a modification achieves the predictable result of regulating temperature of the device. Applicant has not traversed Examiner’s assertion of official notice in the reply filed 12/10/24, and thus the use of a heatsink with a Peltier device is taken to be admitted prior art [see MPEP 2144.03].
Regarding claim 17, Frei discloses wherein the temperature actuating element is a Peltier device positioned in the trackball and in physical contact with a metallic wire positioned to conduct heat away from the Peltier device (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, Peltier device with copper wire 12; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 18, Frei discloses wherein the trackball comprises a casing comprising a plastic upper portion positioned at a touch sensor of the trackball, and a metallic lower portion (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, cap of the operating element can be metal, plastic, or a metal/plastic compound; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 20, Frei discloses adjusting an ambient temperature setting for a space according to the adjustment of the value caused by the movement of the trackball; and generating a signal to set an ambient temperature for the space based on the adjusted ambient temperature setting (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, rotary knob 3 for adjusting air-conditioning system disclosed; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 21, Frei discloses wherein a magnitude of an increase in the thermal haptic feedback temperature is correlated with a magnitude of an increase in the ambient temperature setting (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, temperature of the knob is a function of the temperature selected by a user; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 32, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 11.
Regarding claim 33, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12.
Regarding claim 34, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 13.
Regarding claim 36, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 15.
Regarding claim 37, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16.
Regarding claim 38, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 17.
Regarding claim 39, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 18.
Regarding claim 40, Frei discloses wherein the plastic upper portion comprises a majority of the casing (figs. 1-3, ¶ 16-22, cap of the operating element can be metal, plastic, or a metal/plastic compound; see also ¶ 1-11).
Regarding claim 107, Mikhailov further teaches wherein the thermal haptic feedback temperature is below the determined environmental temperature when the determined environmental temperature is above a first predetermined threshold (¶ 121-124, surface is cooled when the ambient temperature is hot);
and wherein the thermal haptic feedback temperature is above the determined environmental temperature when the determined environmental temperature is below a second predetermined threshold (¶ 121-124, surface is heated when the ambient temperature is cold).
Claims 14 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frei in view of Fyke and Mikhailov as applied to claims 11 and 32 above, and further in view of Fei (US 7,062,365).
Regarding claim 14, Frei in view of Fyke and Mikhailov fails to disclose wherein the trackball is integrated with a steering wheel of a vehicle.
Fei teaches wherein the trackball is integrated with a steering wheel of a vehicle (fig. 3, see col. 9, steering wheel with trackball 36).
Frei in view of Fyke and Mikhailov and Fei are both directed to vehicle control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Frei in view of Fyke and Mikhailov with the device of Fei since such a modification allows the user to control the device while driving (Fei, col. 9, ll. 31-38).
Regarding claim 35, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11 and 32 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626