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 Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the following grammatical errors: “that the user will starts an operation”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (US 2020/0341549 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, and 8, Ishikawa discloses an information processing system comprising:
a controller apparatus that is operated by a user in a contact manner (see fig. 1); and
an information processing apparatus that is connected with the controller apparatus (see par. [0014], The controller apparatus 1 is connected communicably with an information processing apparatus 2 in wired or wireless fashion), wherein
the controller apparatus works in an operation state of either a first state of receiving a user operation and transmitting information regarding the received operation to the information processing apparatus or a second state of executing a predetermined process based on a user contact state, the second state being different from the first state (see par. [0054], The user puts his or her fingers from the index finger to the little finger through the fixing implement 20 of the controller apparatus 1, grips the grip part 11, places the thumb in an operable position on the operation part 12 on the front side, and puts the index finger on the swing button 17. In this state, the user controls the information processing apparatus 2 to start a game application, for example; also see par. [0069], In this state (in which the result of the detection of acceleration on all axes by the acceleration sensor 25 is zero), the processor 19 checks whether or not the detected value from any one of the sensors 160, first sensors 21, and second sensors 22 exceeds the threshold value D2 for determining that the user's finger is not touching the sensor (the threshold value D2 is used for determining that the user's finger is not touching the sensor when the detected value is below the threshold value).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2020/0341549 A1) in view of VanWyk et al. (US 2021/0252383 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa discloses the controller apparatus as discussed above. However, Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose a sound generating device that generates a sound, wherein, in the second state, the sound generating device is controlled to generate a sound according to a command from the information processing apparatus, until the user touches the controller apparatus.
VanWyk teaches a controller with adjustable features including a sound generating device that generates a sound, wherein, in the second state, the sound generating device is controlled to generate a sound according to a command from the information processing apparatus, until the user touches the controller apparatus (see par. [0028], For example, a user may touch a speaker with his/her finger to change (e.g., increase or decrease) the volume or to mute the sound). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the controller apparatus of Ishikawa with the sound generating device and sound controlling functionality of VanWyk in order to enhance user experiences of game controllers (see VanWyk, par. [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa discloses a sensor that detects information regarding a spatial position displacement from a finger of the user (see par. [0024], each of the sensors being arranged to detect spatial displacements between the sensor and the finger). VanWyk similarly teaches sensors that detect finger proximity (see par. [0041], In general, the sensor(s) may be configured to sense proximity of a finger to the speaker(s) 128, 130) and wherein, when the sensor detects that the finger of the user is getting close to the controller apparatus during the second state, the sound generating device is controlled to generate a sound that is different from a sound to be generated when the sensor does not detect that the finger of the user is getting close to the controller apparatus (see par. [0040], For example, the left thumb of the user may contact the first speaker 128 to disable, enable, and/or adjust certain audio features, while the right thumb of the user may touch the right speaker 130 to disable, enable, and/or adjust certain audio features). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the controller apparatus of Ishikawa with the sound generating device and sound controlling functionality of VanWyk in order to enhance user experiences of game controllers (see VanWyk, par. [0002]).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2020/0341549 A1) in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 2019/0369801 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa discloses the controller apparatus as discussed above. However, Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein means that predicts whether or not the user will start an operation, on a basis of the user contact state during the second state, and,
when a result of the prediction indicates that the user will starts an operation, the first state operation is started.
Wilkinson teaches electronic devices which can predict whether or not the user will start an operation, on a basis of the user contact state during the second state, and,
when a result of the prediction indicates that the user will starts an operation, the first state operation is started (see par. [0291], In an embodiment, the computer system can utilize algorithmic prediction techniques to create a temporal and/or spatial prediction of how the user will utilize the device next including when and where the user will next provide input; also see par. [0292], may be able to predict when a user is about to or has just touched a touch input device, and therefore can change the performance/power-consumption mode of the touch input device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the controller apparatus of Ishikawa with the mode prediction of Wilkinson in order to put the device into a mode with a more appropriate performance/power-consumption mode or trade-off (see Wilkinson, par. [0291]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa discloses wherein the controller apparatus is operated while being mounted on a hand of the user, a contact sensor that detects whether or not a finger of the user touches the controller apparatus is disposed on a surface of the controller apparatus with which the finger of the user is in contact when the controller apparatus is mounted on the user hand (see fig. 3 and par. [0024], The multiple second sensors 22 may be arranged as desired as long as they come into contact with the user's fingers ranging from their balls to their tips on the controller body 10 when the user grips the grip part 11 thereof, each of the sensors being arranged to detect spatial displacements between the sensor and the finger). Wilkinson teaches wherein the prediction is based on a detection result obtained by the contact sensor (see par. [0292], may be able to predict when a user is about to or has just touched a touch input device, and therefore can change the performance/power-consumption mode of the touch input device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the controller apparatus of Ishikawa with the mode prediction of Wilkinson in order to put the device into a mode with a more appropriate performance/power-consumption mode or trade-off (see Wilkinson, par. [0291]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishikawa (US 11,813,518 B2), Rogoza et al. (US 11,857,869 B2), Nakamura et al. (US 10,635,171 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 12/5/2025