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 1-12, 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. 20160361641 to Koizumi et al (Koizumi).
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:
such that the processor changes an execution environment of the game application (as required by claim 20) in response to an operation of the second operation member (emphasis added).
Koizumi teaches changes an execution environment of the game application (as required by claim 20) in response to an operation of the second operation member (Fig. 5, elements 33-36, 43, 44, ¶¶148, 161, 451 e.g., pushing buttons change associated game play images). The input device of Martinez would have motivation to use the teachings of Koizumi in order to provide additional game control inputs in locations easier for the game player to contact.
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 Koizumi in order to make it more convenient for the game player to contact inputs in doing so would help in providing a better gaming 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 14. Martinez in view of Koizumi teaches wherein the execution environment is changed according to an operation performed on one of the plurality of first operation members while the second operation member is being pressed (see Martinez ¶88 e.g., a user simultaneously press different buttons on the game controller and the text input device).
Claim 16. Martinez in view of Koizumi teaches 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).
Claims 13 and 19 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. 20160361641 to Koizumi et al (Koizumi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20210379487 to Huffer et al (Huffer).
Claim 13. Martinez fails to explicitly disclose claim 13 limitations.
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 (¶¶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 Koizumi 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 Koizumi 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 19. Martinez fails to explicitly disclose claim 19 limitations.
Huffer teaches change the execution environment by acting as a shift key that imparts a second, different function to at least one of the plurality of first operation members (¶¶36, 44 “change the function of 136 buttons (178, 180, 182, 184) back and forth between D-pad 22 function and modifiers”; “recognizes specific buttons being simultaneously pressed and translates output command from a distinct module to the processor” such that pressing a first input then simultaneously pressing a second input causes the first input to act a shift key because it changes the function of the second input). The input device of Martinez would have motivation to use the teachings of Koizumi in order to allow different input combinations to provide varying input commands.
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 Koizumi in order to allow different input combinations to provide varying input commands in doing so would provide an increase in the number and type of inputs that the input device is capable of.
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. 20160361641 to Koizumi et al (Koizumi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. 6459420 to Harris.
Claim 15. Martinez fails to explicitly disclose claim 15 limitations.
Harris teaches wherein an uneven pattern is formed on a pressed surface of the second 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. 20160361641 to Koizumi et al (Koizumi) 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 in view of Koizumi 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).
Conclusion
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