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 applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 32
Cancelled: 38
Added: None
Therefore, claims 32-37 and 39-62 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/26/3036 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the office has to respectfully disagree with the argument that O’Mahony does not disclose the limitation “simulating a freewheeling state of the pivotable input element from a starting time, and further generating the control signal independent of the angular position of the input element from the starting time of the freewheeling state and generating the control signal independent of the temporal change in the angular position of the input element”. O’Mahony discloses an input device that is capable of adjusting the resistance of the knob (Para. 0072). Furthermore, O’Mahony discloses that the knob can be rotated freely when the ratchet system is turned off. Specially, the free rotation is preferable for the applications that have high number of settings (Para. 0073). Therefore, it is the examiner’s understanding that the a magnetic angular sensor would transfer the detected angular signal to the input device as a control signal during a ratchet mode (Para. 0075). And, the angular position would be zero or non-existent during the free-wheeling mode. Furthermore, O’Mahony would generate the control signal when the user rotates the knob when the knob is rotating freely when the ratchet system is turned off. And, it is the examiner’s understanding that this control signal is independent of the angular position of the input device. Since, the claim does not recite any relationship with a control signal which is influenced by the change in angular position and the control signal independent of the temporal change in the angular position of the input device, O’Mahony suggest the recited claim limitations as discussed above.
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) 32-37, 39, 42-43, 47-50, 52-56, 58-60 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by O’Mahoney et al. (US 2018/0164901 A1, hereinafter “O’Mahony”).
As to claim 32, O’Mahony (Fig. 4A) discloses a method for operating an input device (Para. 0068), comprising:
providing at least one pivotable input element of the input device (450), the input element being configured to be at least partially manually operated and pivoted to carry out an input (451; Para. 0068);
detecting at least one change in an angular position of the input element by at least one sensor device (Fig. 5 element 525; Para. 0075); and
generating a control signal which is influenced at least by the change in the angular position of the input element (Para. 0075); and
simulating a freewheeling state of the pivotable input element from a starting time (Para. 0072, “no rotational resistance”), and further generating the control signal independent of the angular position of the input element from the starting time of the freewheeling state (Para. 0073-0074, the non-ratchet mode is independent of angle controlled by the processor based on the applications);and
wherein in the freewheeling state, the control signal is generated independent of the temporal change in the angular position of the input element (Para. 0073-0074).
As to claim 33, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the start time is set when the user issues a start command (Fig. 11; Para. 0090-0091, a new application would start a ratchet or non-rachet mode), the start command being able to be triggered by at least one of pressing a button or a switch (Fig. 4A element 457), acoustic command, and optical command (Para. 0070-0071).
As to claim 34, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the start time is set automatically when a characteristic value for a temporal change in the angular position of the input element exceeds a predetermined level (Para. 0085, turn knob by 180 degrees).
As to claim 35, O’Mahoney discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the simulation of the freewheeling state is ended when the user makes another input (Para. 0073, when user opens up a new application).
As to claim 36, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the simulation of the freewheeling state is ended when the input element is not rotating and the user begins to rotate the input element (Fig. 11; Para. 0092), and the sensor device detects a change in the angular position (Para. 0075, there would be change in angular position when the wheel stops rotating).
As to claim 37, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the simulation of the freewheeling state is ended when the input element rotates and the user actively changes and brakes or accelerates the speed of the input element (Fig. 13A-13C; Para. 0099).
As to claim 39, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the control signal is generated based on at least one parameter from a group of parameters consisting of a current angular position, a current rotational speed, a current angular acceleration, and a current point in time (Para. 0075).
As to claim 42, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 34, wherein the control signal after the starting time is greater than the control signal at the time at which the characteristic value for a temporal change in the angular position of the input element exceeds a predetermined level (Fig. 11; Para. 0072, 0085, the control signal for free rotation with no ratcheting effect).
As to claim 43, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the control signal is generated depending on a time period from the start time (Para. 0085, treating multiple input as a single continuous turn).
As to claim 47, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein a level of the control signal depends on at least one of the length of a document, the number of list entries in a list, the number of mention entries of a mention, and a travel path (Figs. 9-11; Para. 0073, 0104).
As to claim 48, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the input element can be rotated at least several revolutions (Para. 0085).
As to claim 49, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein at least one rotation of the input element is specifically delayed, held and released by means of at least one controllable magnetorheological braking device (Para. 0077).
As to claim 50, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the mobility of the input element is specifically adjusted at least as a function of at least one input condition, and wherein the input condition comprises at least one movement parameter (Para. 0104).
As to claim 52, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein:
the mobility of the input element is specified and/or influenced at least as a function of a profile, which has at least two input conditions that are at least partially dependent on one another and which are at least partially determined by a user (Para. 0104); and
the profile is individually customizable by a user interface of a computer device, and/or the profile is particularly individually customizable based on environmental information/user information (Para. 0073-0074).
As to claim 53, O’Mahony (Fig. 22) discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein within a movement range of the input element, a grid with stop points (2141, 2143) is generated by a braking device (2140) depending on at least one movement parameter (Para. 0121), which determines the mobility and a movement of the input element is influenced (Para. 0121).
As to claim 54, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein:
the input element is used for scrolling (Fig. 9);
the mobility of the input element changes depending on the scrolling (Fig. 10, 11);
the mobility of the input element is set depending on an activity of a program running in the background and/or depending on an operating state of an operating system of a computer device (Para. 0073); and/or
the mobility of the input element is set depending on a zooming process and wherein zooming in along a direction of movement occurs with a delay and zooming out in an opposite direction of movement occurs with a different delay than for zooming out (Fig. 12A-12B; Para. 0070, 0073, 0094).
As to claim 55, O’Mahony discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein when an input is made in at least one input menu with inactive and active input fields, and the mobility of the input element is set depending on whether the input field is inactive or active (Para. 0072).
As to claim 56, O’Mahoney discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein:
the mobility of the input element is changed in order to provide a haptic confirmation of a previously made input;
in the event of an incorrect and/or implausible and/or critical input, the mobility of the input element is delayed or blocked; and/or after an input the mobility of the input element is delayed or held until at least one further user input has been made (Para. 0072).
As to claim 58, O’Mahoney discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the mobility of the input element can be adjusted by user input (Para. 0072).
As to claim 59, O’Mahoney (Fig. 4A) discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the input element has at least one input wheel (450), the input takes place at least by rotating the input wheel, and the rotatability of the input wheel can be specifically delayed, held, and released by a braking device (Para. 0072, 0077).
As to claim 60, O’Mahoney The method according to claim 50, wherein the input condition is also dynamically adjusted depending on the input, so that the mobility of the input element is also adjusted by the input made according to the principle of feedback (Para. 0044, 0072).
As to claim 62, O’Mahoney discloses an input device for carrying out the method according to claim 32 (Fig. 4A).
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(s) 40-41, 44 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony in view of Chion et al. (US 2020/0122575 A1, hereinafter “Chion”).
As to claim 40, O’Mahony does not disclose the method according to claim 34, wherein when the predetermined measure is exceeded, the control signal is further generated based in part on the speed of the input element and/or the acceleration of the input element.
However, Chion teaches wherein when the predetermined measure is exceeded, the control signal is further generated based in part on the speed of the input element and/or the acceleration of the input element (Para. 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chion to measure the speed of the rotation in the device disclosed by O’Mahoney. The motivation would have been to determine rotation information of the knob (Chion; Para. 0103).
As to claim 41, O’Mahony does not disclose the method according to claim 34, wherein the characteristic value is derived from a speed and/or an acceleration of the input element.
However, Chion teaches wherein the characteristic value is derived from a speed and/or an acceleration of the input element (Para. 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chion to measure the speed of the rotation in the device disclosed by O’Mahoney. The motivation would have been to determine rotation information of the knob (Chion; Para. 0103).
As to claim 44, O’Mahony does not disclose the method according to claim 43, wherein a decrease in the speed of the input element over time is simulated during the freewheeling state.
However, Chion teaches wherein a decrease in the speed of the input element over time is simulated during the freewheeling state (Para. 0030, deceleration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chion to adjust the rotation of the knob in the device disclosed by O’Mahoney. The motivation would have been to control the scrolling speed through a list, group of options or a menu (Chion; Para. 0030).
As to claim 51, O’Mahony does not disclose the method according to claim 50, wherein the movement parameter has at least one direction, a speed, and/or an acceleration of a movement of the input element.
However, Chion teaches wherein the movement parameter has at least one direction, a speed, and/or an acceleration of a movement of the input element (Para. 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chion to measure the speed of the rotation in the device disclosed by O’Mahoney. The motivation would have been to determine rotation information of the knob (Chion; Para. 0103).
Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of McLoughlin et al. (US 2020/0004352 A1, hereinafter “McLoughlin”).
As to claim 45, O’Mahony does not disclose the method according to claim 32, wherein a temporal length of the freewheeling state is limited.
However, McLoughlin teaches wherein a temporal length of the freewheeling state is limited (Fig. 20; Para. 0124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of O’Mahoney to include manual operation in a freewheel mode in the device disclosed by O’Mahony. The motivation would have been to provide more options to the user (McLoughlin; Para. 0122).
Claim(s) 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Katz et al. (US 2020/0103980 A1, hereinafter “Katz”).
As to claim 46, O’Mahony does not disclose the method according to claim 32, wherein the behavior of the user is evaluated by artificial intelligence and the control signal in the freewheeling state is adjusted depending on the evaluation.
However, Katz teaches wherein the behavior of the user is evaluated by artificial intelligence and the control signal in the freewheeling state is adjusted depending on the evaluation (Para. 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Katz to include a machine learning in the device disclosed by O’Mahony. The motivation would have been to facilitate user behavior detection/predictions (Katz; Para. 0022).
Claim(s) 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Rosenburg et al. (US 2002/0109668 A1, hereinafter “Rosenberg”).
As to claim 57, O’Mahoney does not disclose the method according to claim 32, wherein the input device is used for gaming on a gaming device, the mobility of the input element is set depending on a scenario generated by the gaming device and the mobility of the input element is configured to have a greater delay where a greater force is fictitiously required in the scenario and/or the more difficult the action that is fictitiously carried out in the scenario.
However, Rosenberg teaches wherein the input device is used for gaming on a gaming device, the mobility of the input element is set depending on a scenario generated by the gaming device and the mobility of the input element is configured to have a greater delay where a greater force is fictitiously required in the scenario and/or the more difficult the action that is fictitiously carried out in the scenario (Abstract; Para. 0050, 0052, 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rosenburg to provide different haptic effects in the device disclosed by O’Mahony. The motivation would have been to help the user to perform the required task (Rosenburg; Para. 0056).
Claim(s) 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Barrett et al. (US 2014/0118222 A1, hereinafter “Barrett”).
As to claim 61, O’Mahoney does not disclose the method according to claim 32, wherein the rotational movement of the operating part is braked by a braking device depending on an operating state of a motor vehicle, and the operating state includes at least one driving mode and at least one stationary mode.
However, Barrett teaches wherein the rotational movement of the operating part is braked by a braking device depending on an operating state of a motor vehicle, and the operating state includes at least one driving mode and at least one stationary mode (Para. 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Barrett to control the input functionality based on an operating state of a vehicle in the device disclosed by O’Mahony. The motivation would have been to avoid distracting a driver of the vehicle from the task of driving (Barrett; Para. 0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Dunant et al. (US 2021/0286448 A1) discloses a freewheeling mode (Para. 0037).
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 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 BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights