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.
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.
Claims 1-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20040224765 to Martinez et al (Martinez) in view of US Pub. 20210379487 to Huffer et al (Huffer) and US Pub. 20200061456 to Bruckbock.
Claims 1 and 20. Martinez discloses an input device for inputting a signal corresponding to an operation of a user to an information processing device (Fig. 1), the input device comprising:
a right portion located rightward with respect to a center in a left-right direction of the input device (Figs. 4, 5, 21);
a left portion located leftward with respect to the center in the left-right direction of the input device (Figs. 4, 5, 21);
a plurality of first operation members arranged on an upper surface of the right portion and an upper surface of the left portion (Figs. 4, 5, 21, ¶57);
a processor (Fig. 20, element 200) configured to output a signal for operation of a game application executed by the information processing device, according to operation of the plurality of first operation members (¶88); and
a second operation member (Figs. 9, 16, 28, element 120),
the processor being configured to receive an operation on the second operation member and (as required by claim 20) wherein the second operation member is electrically connected to the processor (Fig. 20, ¶¶76, 88); and
the second operation member being disposed at a position lower than the upper surface of the right portion and the upper surface of the left portion (Figs. 9, 16, 28, element 120).
However, Martinez fails to explicitly disclose:
change an execution environment of the game application when an operation of at least one of the plurality of first operation members is performed while the second operation member is being operated
Huffer and/or Bruckbock teaches change an execution environment of the game application when an operation of at least one of the plurality of first operation members is performed while the second operation member is being operated (see Huffer ¶44; and see Bruckbock ¶66). The input device of Martinez would have motivation to use the teachings of Huffer and/or Bruckbock in order to reconfigure button inputs as desired by each respective player in doing so game players can map and setup buttons as they wish which would provide a better game experience.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Martinez with the teachings of Huffer and/or Bruckbock in order to reconfigure button inputs as desired by each respective player in doing so game players can map and setup buttons as they wish which would provide a better game experience.
Claim 2. Martinez discloses wherein the second operation member has an upper surface configured to be pressed by the user (Figs. 9, 16, 28).
Claim 3. Martinez discloses wherein an upper surface of the second operation member is lower than the upper surface of the right portion and the upper surface of the left portion (Figs. 9, 16, 28).
Claim 4. Martinez discloses wherein an upper surface of the second operation member is inclined obliquely rearward (Fig. 18).
Claim 5. Martinez discloses wherein the second operation member is located frontward or rearward of the plurality of first operation members (Fig. 18).
Claim 6. Martinez discloses wherein the plurality of first operation members include an operation stick, and the second operation member is located rearward of the operation stick (Figs. 16, 18).
Claim 7. Martinez discloses wherein the plurality of first operation members include an operation stick, four buttons located at end portions of a cross, and a direction key, and the second operation member is located rearward of the operation stick, the four buttons, and the direction key (Figs. 16, 18).
Claim 8. Martinez discloses wherein the second operation member is located most rearward among all of operation members possessed by the input device (Figs. 16, 18).
Claim 9. Martinez discloses wherein the second operation member projects from a rear surface of the input device (Figs. 17, 18, ¶82).
Claim 10. Martinez discloses further comprising:
an exterior member, wherein the second operation member projects outward from a peripheral edge of the exterior member as viewed in plan of the input device (Figs. 9, 16, 28).
Claim 11. Martinez discloses further comprising:
a central portion located between the left portion and the right portion, a left grip portion extending rearward from the left portion, and a right grip portion extending rearward from the right portion, wherein the second operation member is disposed in a region surrounded by the left grip portion, the right grip portion, and the central portion as viewed in plan of the input device (Figs. 9, 16, 28).
Claim 12. Martinez discloses wherein the second operation member includes two second operation members separated from each other in the left-right direction (Figs. 9, 16, 28).
Claim 13. Martinez in view of Huffer teaches at least one of adjusting a sound volume, adjusting a vibration magnitude generated by a vibration motor, adjusting a resistance of a trigger button, or re-allocating a game function to one of the first operation members (see Huffer ¶¶29, 36 “large range of switchable settings to streamline personal playstyles and preferences”; “setting switches 190, 192 can change the keyboard configurations, the modification button settings (button correspondence and ranges), the tilt settings and ranges, and other settings”). The input device of Martinez would have motivation to use the teachings of Huffer in order to allow input reconfiguration according to a user specific preference.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Martinez with the teachings of Huffer in order to allow input reconfiguration according to a user specific preference in doing so would provide a better gaming experience for the game players.
Claim 14. Martinez in view of Huffer and/or Bruckbock wherein the execution environment is changed according to which one of the plurality of first operation members is operated while the second operation member is being operated (see Martinez ¶88 e.g., a user simultaneously press different buttons on the game controller and the text input device; see Huffer ¶44; and see Bruckbock ¶66).
Claim 16. Martinez discloses wherein the second operation member is supported so as to move vertically about an axis orthogonal to an upward-downward direction of the input device (see Martinez as buttons are pressed and released the buttons on the text input device moves down and up).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20040224765 to Martinez et al (Martinez) in view of US Pub. 20210379487 to Huffer et al (Huffer) and US Pub. 20200061456 to Bruckbock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. 6459420 to Harris.
Claim 15. Martinez fails to explicitly disclose an uneven pattern is formed on the upper surface of the second operation member to suppress slippage of a user's finger.
Harris teaches an uneven pattern is formed on a pressed surface of the operation member to suppress slippage of a user's finger (Figs, 1(a), 2(a), 3(a), 4(a), col. 1, 48-62). The input device of Martinez would have motivation to use the teachings of Harris in order to provide an input design providing the benefit of reducing soreness in the thumb of the player and by providing better control by preventing a player's thumb from easily slipping off the joystick which is easier to use by a player.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Martinez with the teachings of Harris in order to provide an input design providing the benefit of reducing soreness in the thumb of the player and by providing better control by preventing a player's thumb from easily slipping off the joystick which is easier to use by a player.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20040224765 to Martinez et al (Martinez) in view of US Pub. 20210379487 to Huffer et al (Huffer) and US Pub. 20200061456 to Bruckbock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20050255915 to Riggs et al (Riggs).
Claim 17. Martinez fails to explicitly disclose claim 17 limitations.
Riggs teaches wherein the plurality of first operation members are arranged on a stick unit that is detachably attached to a housing recessed portion of the input device (Fig. 3, ¶33). The input device of Martinez would have motivation to use the teachings of Riggs in order to allow physically changing the position and location of specific inputs.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Martinez with the teachings of Riggs in order to allow physical changing the position and location of specific inputs in doing so would provide a better gaming experience for the game players.
Claim 18. Martinez discloses teaches wherein the second operation member is provided on the stick unit and is electrically connected to the processor through fitting connectors (see Martinez Figs. 18, 20, element 138).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
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 DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights