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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ironmonger et al (US 20170151494; “Iron” hereinafter), in view of Okamura et al (US20250001287; “Okamura” hereinafter), and further in view of Lyden (US 20220062756; “Lyden” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Iron discloses: an input device (1, fig. 1) for inputting a command corresponding to an operation of a user to an information processing device (¶[0002]-[0003]), the input device comprising:
a right portion (see annotated fig. 1 below) located rightward with respect to a center (see annotated fig. 1 below) in a left-right direction of the input device; a left portion (see annotated fig. 1 below) located leftward with respect to the center in the left-right direction of the input device; an exterior member (12 and 14, fig. 1); and an operation stick unit (2, 11B, figs. 1-2) comprising: an operation stick (2, fig. 1), and an operation member (11B, fig. 2), the operation member being located rearward of the operation stick (fig. 1 teaches this limitation) and projecting outward from a peripheral edge of the exterior member as viewed in plan of the input device (fig. 2 teaches this limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iron does not explicitly teach:
an operation stick that projects upward from the exterior member,
a shaft member, wherein the operation member is supported so as to be movable about an axis of the shaft member, the axis intersecting an upward-downward direction .
However, Okamura teaches:
an operation stick (4a, fig. 1) that projects upward from an exterior member (10, 20, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Okamra into Iron, such that operation stick that projects upward from the exterior member, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Okamura. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Iron in view of Okamura do not explicitly teach:
a shaft member, wherein the operation member is supported so as to be movable about an axis of the shaft member, the axis intersecting an upward-downward direction.
However, Lyden teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
363
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a shaft member (46, figs. 12-13, and 18), wherein operation members (19, see annotated fig. 11 below) are supported so as to be movable about an axis (horizontal axis figs. 12-13, 15-18) of the shaft member (figs. 12-13), the axis intersecting an upward-downward direction (vertical direction of figs. 12-13, 15-18, ¶[0101]).
t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Iron’s operation member and include Lyden’s shaft member, such that the operation member is supported so as to be movable about an axis of the shaft member, the axis intersecting an upward-downward direction, in order to provide a mechanical fixing to the exterior member as required by Iron (¶[0065]), and functionally enable the operation member. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Lyden. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP §2143).
Regarding claim 3, Iron in view of Okamura and Lyden teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Iron further discloses: wherein the operation member (11B) projects from the peripheral edge of the exterior member in a direction orthogonal to an extending direction of the operation stick (examination of figs. 1-3 clearly teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Iron in view of Okamura and Lyden teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Iron further discloses: wherein the input device further comprises a plurality of second operation members (4, 9, fig. 1,), wherein the plurality of second operation members include a push button (“there are four buttons 4”, ¶[0064]), and the operation member is supported so as to move in the upward-downward direction (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1-2 and ¶[0066]).
Iron does not explicitly disclose:
the push button configured to move in an upward-downward direction.
However, Okamura teaches:
a push button (2, fig. 1) configured to move in an upward-downward direction (¶[0047], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Okamra into Iron, such that the push button is configured to move in an upward-downward direction, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (push-buttons) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Okamura. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Iron in view of Okamura and Lyden teaches the limitations of claim 4, and the combination further teaches: wherein the axis extends along a direction orthogonal to the upward-downward direction (the combination of the axis from Lyden’s shaft (46), with Iron’s operation member (11b) meets this limitation).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ironmonger et al (US 20170151494; “Iron” hereinafter), in view of Okamura et al (US20250001287; “Okamura” hereinafter), and further in view of Liu et al (US 20110098116; “Liu” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Iron in view of Okamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Iron further teaches:
comprising: an input device main body (12).
Iron in view of Okamura does not explicitly teach:
an input device main body having a housing recessed portion configured to house the operation stick unit, wherein the operation stick unit is attachable to and detachable from the housing recessed portion.
However, Liu teaches:
comprising: an input device main body (100, fig. 1) having a housing recessed portion (102, fig. 2) configured to house the operation stick unit (11-14, figs. 1-2), wherein the operation stick unit is attachable to and detachable from the housing recessed portion (figs. 1-2, ¶[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Liu into Iron in view of Okamura, such that the input device comprises an input device main body having a housing recessed portion configured to house the operation stick unit, wherein the operation stick unit is attachable to and detachable from the housing recessed portion, in order to provide operation stick units having different functions which are detachable from the housing recessed portion, such that the operation stick units can be interchanged according to the game setting and players' habits (¶[0014], [0017]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ironmonger et al (US 20170151494; “Iron” hereinafter), in view of Okamura et al (US20250001287; “Okamura” hereinafter), and further in view of Burgess et al (US 20160082349; “Burgess” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Iron in view of Okamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the operation member has a pressed surface oriented upward and configured to be pressed by the user.
However, Burgess teaches:
wherein an operation member (111A, 111B, figs. 11-14) has a pressed surface (128b, 129b, fig. 14) oriented upward (figs. 11-12, 14) and configured to be pressed by the user (¶[0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Burgess into Iron in view of Okamura, such that the operation member has a pressed surface oriented upward and configured to be pressed by the user, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Burgess. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iron in view of Okamura, and further in view of Ogata et al (US 20040048665; “Ogata” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Iron in view of Okamura discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
a circuit board, wherein
a sensor configured to detect movement of the operation member is mounted on the circuit board, the sensor includes a movable portion configured to move in a direction along the circuit board, and the operation member faces the movable portion in the direction along the circuit board, and is able to move in a direction intersecting the circuit board.
However, Ogata teaches:
a sensor (34, 35 and 37, fig. 10) configured to detect movement of an operation member (10, ¶[0062]-[0064]) is mounted on a circuit board (38), the sensor includes a movable portion (34 and 35) configured to move in a direction along the circuit board (fig. 10, ¶[0062]-[0064]), and the operation member faces the movable portion in the direction along the circuit board (as disclosed in fig. 10), and is able to move in a direction intersecting the circuit board (as disclosed in fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ogata into Iron in view of Okamura, so that a sensor configured to detect movement of the operation member is mounted on the circuit board, the sensor includes a movable portion configured to move in a direction along the circuit board, and the operation member faces the movable portion in the direction along the circuit board, and is able to move in a direction intersecting the circuit board, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (sensors for detecting movement of operation members) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Ogata. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP §2143).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Iron in view of Okamura, and further in view of Igarashi et al (US 20150290534; “Igarashi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Young discloses the limitations of claim 1, but is silent with regards to:
wherein the operation member is a member for changing an execution environment of an application while the information processing device is executing the application.
However, Igarashi teaches:
an operating member (16, fig. 5) is a member for changing an execution environment of an application while the information processing device is executing the application (“The operating button 16 is, for example, an analog button capable of detecting the user's pressing amount”, ¶[0065], therefore, by detecting the user's pressing amount operation button 16 supplies data/instructions to the operating system being executed by the information processing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the operation member of Iron in view of Okamura with Igarashi’s teaching, and set the operating member to change an execution environment of an application while the information processing device is executing the application, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (application execution configuration) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Igarashi (MPEP §2143). Furthermore, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP §2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claim 9, a combination of limitations that teaches:
wherein the operation member is supported so as to be movable:
in an upward-downward direction, and about an axis intersecting the upward-downward direction.
Claim 10 is allowed by virtue of dependency to claim 9.
Remarks
Regarding claim 9, Young et al (US 20080311992; “Young” hereinafter) teaches:
An operation stick unit (3, fig. 1) comprising:
an operation stick (6) protruding upward (figs. 1-3);
an operation member (7, fig. 1);
wherein the operation member is positioned rearward of the operation stick (fig. 1),
a connector mounted on operation stick unit (21 and 23, fig. 4, ¶ [0035]-[0036]) and configured to be electrically connected (via 14 and 15, fig. 7) to a main body (2, fig. 1) of an input device (1, fig. 1).
Mak Pui See et al (US 20080284731; “See” hereinafter) teaches:
a first supporting mechanism (see ‘FSM’ in annotated fig. 7 below) configured to support an operation stick (36, figs. 2 and 7, ¶[0033]-[0034]); a second supporting mechanism (35, fig. 7) configured to support an operation member (39, figs. 2 and 7, ¶[0033]-[0034]),
the operation member (39, fig. 6) is supported so as to be movable in an upward-downward direction (¶[0020], [0033]).
Strahle et al (US 20180333641; “Strahle” hereinafter) teaches:
a user input device (100, 200, i.e. operation stick, figs. 4-5) comprising a circuit board (260, “a sensor 260 (e.g., which may be the printed circuit board itself, or another sensory device)”, ¶[0057]) on which a circuit for detecting movement of the operation unit (“a sensor 260 (e.g., which may be the printed circuit board itself, or another sensory device) for detecting operation of the smart UID 200 (e.g., detecting when the actuation componentry (here, tact buttons 250) is/are engaged)”, ¶[0057]) is formed; and
a connector (290, fig. 5) mounted on the circuit board (¶[0067]) and configured to be electrically connected to a main body (see “to controller body”, fig. 5) of an input device (“Conducting pins 290 may enable/allow a processor of a videogame controller to access and/or operate on information stored in memory 270”, ¶[0067]).
Palma Guerrero (US 20240082701; “Guerrero” hereinafter) teaches:
an operation member (161a, figs. 2A, 2C) protrudes outward beyond an outer peripheral edge of a circuit board (292, see annotated fig. 2C below) in a plan view of an operation stick unit (200, fig. 2C).
PNG
media_image3.png
533
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments:
“The operation members ("paddle levers") of Ironmonger, which are mounted to the
housing by a mechanical fixing, do not rotate about an axis of a shaft member. Accordingly, the cited portion of Ironmonger fails to disclose or suggest that "a shaft member, wherein the operation member is supported so as to be movable about an axis of the shaft member," as recited by amended claim 1. Furthermore, the paddle levers of Ironmonger are not disclosed as being part of "an operation stick unit" that also includes "an operation stick that projects upward from the exterior member," as claimed.”.
Examiner’s response:
Iron is not solely relied upon to teach the limitation "an operation stick that projects upward from the exterior member", but rather Okamura in combination with Iron (see previous and present office actions). With respect to “the cited portion of Ironmonger fails to disclose or suggest that "a shaft member, wherein the operation member is supported so as to be movable about an axis of the shaft member," as recited by amended claim 1”, Lyden is relied upon, to teach “a shaft member, wherein the operation member is supported so as to be movable about an axis of the shaft member, the axis intersecting an upward-downward direction”, to that in combination with Iron and Okamura, these references of record teach the limitations of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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 L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
