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
Applicant has amended the independent claims and argues Kidakarn does not disclose the recited features (Remarks 6 filed 9/25/2026). Examiner agrees and directs Applicant to the combinations of Kidakarn, Soma, Alps, and Moon for Applicant’s consideration.
Examiner notes that the identification of allowable subject matter based on Claim 17 is withdrawn. Looking back to the set of claims on 2/12/2026, Claim 17 had a typographical error as it should have been dependent on Claim 14 similar to Claims 15 and 16. Instead it depended from Claim 1 and lacked antecedent basis because there was no first external cover in Claim 1. Separately, Claim 17 is rejected under Urhman. To advance prosecution, the allowable subject matter is withdrawn and Claim 17 is objected to (below) for lacking antecedent basis.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to because they lack antecedent basis for a “second” external cover. To advance prosecution, the claims are construed as having an external cover. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 17-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Applicant’s claim for an input device lack the circuit board of Claim 1. While Applicant may be his own lexicographer, it is not clear how claims directed to a stack of structures held by mechanical means is an input device. Nothing is Applicant’s disclosure describes the functioning of Claims 17-20 and 22 in the absence of some form of electrical signaling means. Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC §103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claim 1-2, 6, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0280681 to Kidakarn in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0245513 to Moon and U.S. Pat. No. 6,342,009 to Soma.
In Reference to Claim 1 and 6
Kidakarn discloses an input device (Fig. 2 controller 10) comprising:
an internal structure including a first frame (Fig. 2 upper internal bracket 223) and a second frame (Fig. lower internal bracket 224) formed by a material (PVC plastic {resin} [0031] and attached to the first frame (affixed [0031]);
a circuit board disposed between the first frame and the second frame (Fig. 2 circuit board 11), wherein the first frame, the second frame, and the circuit board are disposed in a stacked configuration (Fig. 2 dashed line indicating the stack configuration);
a lower case configured to cover a lower side of the internal structure and attached to the internal structure (Fig. 2 lower casting body 214 affixed to the upper internal bracket 223 [0031]); and
an upper case configured to cover an upper side of the internal structure and attached to at least one of the internal structures and the lower case (Fig. 2 upper casting body 213 detachably coupled with the lower casting body 214 [0028]).
Kidakarn discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include using materials and structures that enhance the rigidity of the control housing 21 ([0036). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the lower internal bracket 224 formed by a material having a higher rigidity than the upper internal bracket 223. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Moon.
Moon teaches of a handheld electronic device and method for manufacturing the housing (Titl.) and an exploded view showing a stacked configuration (Fig. 1). In Fig. 1, a printed circuit board 133 ([0076]) is disposed between bracket 131 (Fig. 1 [0075]) equivalent to Applicant’s first frame, and a periphery member 101b (Fig. 1 101b [0063]) equivalent to Applicant’s second frame. The bracket 131 is fixed to housing members 101a and 101b ([0078]). Moon discloses that bracket 131 is weak because of its thinness and is susceptible to bending and deformation ([0089]) and that periphery member 101b is made of resin and glass or carbon fiber to give it a rigidity higher than other resin parts such as housing member 101a which is made of resin alone ([0073]). Moon teaches this so that the rigidity of 101a is improved and loads suppressed ([0073]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the lower internal resin bracket 224 of Kidakarn with the resin reinforced with glass or carbon fiber of Moon to achieve the predictable result of the lower internal resin bracket being made with a reinforced resin material having a higher rigidity to improve the anti-defamation properties of the overall device. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Kidakarn has control holes 222 (Fig. 3) and a frame 224 that overlaps control holes 222 (Fig. 2) but lacks bracket 223 having at least one recessed portion formed at the edge and an attachment hole adjacent to the periphery of the recessed portion overlapped by the frame with an attachment hole and a fastener inserted through the holes. One of skill in the art would be aware of the configuration of Soma.
Soma discloses a substrate 3 with edge recesses to accommodate operating levers 22 (Fig. 2) overlapped by a board 21 (Fig. 2) with adjacent holes 43 in substrate 3 for positioning pins 42 (Fig. 2) to hold the position of the components within the controller.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to apply the configuration of Alps to modify the controller of Kidakarn with a recessed edge portion with adjacent holes in the upper and lower bracket for position pins to achieve the predictable result of assembling the internal structures within the controller, and install the edge recesses of Alps to achieve the predictable result of reducing the weight of the materials used to make the controller increasing the comfort for the player and material and shipping costs for the manufacturer.
In Reference to Claim 2
Kidakarn discloses a first operation member (Fig. 2 joysticks 122); and
a supporting structure attached to the second frame and configured to support the first operation member (lower internal bracket 224 has protrusions to accommodate joystick housings about guiding slots 222 for joystick 122 (Fig. 3) where upper and lower internal brackets are affixed to one another ([0031]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Kidakarn discloses wherein the circuit board 11 is disposed in a central position of the input device (central as in the middle of the controller stack and centered between the hand grips (Fig. 2).
In Reference to Claims 12 and 13
Moon teaches of comprising a battery ([0074]) in location 119 (Fig. 1) which is disposed
between the second frame 101b and the lower case 135.
10. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidakarn, Moon, Soma further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0105231 to Ambinder.
Kidakarn discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the {first, second} housings and guiding posts of each joystick 122 are detachably attached to the second frame. One of skill in the art would be aware of the swappable components of Ambinder.
According to Ambinder, “[o]ne or more main control input interfaces on the game controller consist of generalized sockets. A variety of modular input interfaces can be plugged into these sockets. Hardware specific to the input type of the modular input is contained within the modular input itself, and plugged in via an interface. This allows for dual analog sticks, a combination of analog and trackball, or further any combination of touchpad, directional pad, or additional components.” (Abstr.). In addition, Ambinder teaches of modular control inputs 101, 103, 104 (Fig. 1) and sockets 151 and 152 (Fig.1) such that the modular inputs are shaped for easy manual insertion and removal (Fig. 3, [0034]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the lower internal bracket surfaces of Kidakarn with the {first, second} modular control inputs and sockets of Ambinder to achieve the predictable result of allowing controllers to be swapped with {first, second} input controls specific to the title of input the title of the game may require. The Courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidakarn, Moon further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,664,113 to Date.
Kidakarn discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the fastener is a screw. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Date.
Date discloses a hand-held control device (Titl.) wherein much of the internal framing is made of resin. (Fig. 14 295, Col. 13, ll. 55-61). Date further teaches of providing attachment holes in which a common screw is inserted is in each of the upper and lower cases as well as through the internal plates and structural elements inside the controller (Fig. 3 exploded view showing screws and attachment holes).
One of skill in the art would incorporate the screws of Date to the upper and lower interior brackets of Kidakarn in order to achieve the predictable result of removably binding the elements when fully assembled. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidakarn, Moon, Soma, further in view of CN 109309508A to LG Electronics (LG).
Kidakarn discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the upper or lower interior brackets are formed of metal. One of skill in the art would be aware of the mobile device of LG.
LG teaches of a mobile terminal and material properties of the device (Fig. 1B). The mobile terminal 100 has many functions to include additional functions supporting gameplay (Page 1, para. 6, see highlighted sections of English translation). In particular, for intensity and rigidity a frame including a middle section 290 (Fig. 2 290) where “[f]or strength and rigidity, the mobile terminal 100 may include is configured to support display unit 151 the rear surface of the middle frame (290, see FIG. 3). the middle frame 290 may include a strength of the metal material” (Page 13, para. 1). Additionally, “housing 101, 102, 103 can be formed by injection molding the synthetic resin, or may be made of, for example, stainless steel (STS), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti) is formed of a metal (Page 13, para. 6). Thus, LG teaches that metal can be substituted for resin parts where rigidity is desired.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the brackets of Kidakarn with the metal housings formed of a higher rigidity like the metals of LG in order to achieve the predictable result of making the mobile device more rigid or more resistant to bending or changes in shape. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
13. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidakarn, Moon, Soma further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0018173 to Urhman.
Kidakarn discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include a first exterior cover, removable without the use of a tool and defines at least one opening that exposes a part of the first operational member. Examiner construes “exterior” broadly but reasonably to be not an outermost layer but that which can be observed as opposed to components in the interior of the game controller. Kidakarn discloses a character layer 30 (Figs. 1 and 3, [0037]) disposed between the inner side of the outer casing 21 and the outer side of the internal enclosure 22 for enhancing a personalization of the control housing 20 ([0037]). “Accordingly, the character layer 30 can be selectively replaced by the player by simply detaching the outer casing 21 from the internal enclosure 22 and can be seen through the outer casing 21. The character layer 30 can be a film printed with a desired character corresponding to the video game to enhance the personalization and visual impression of the game controller of the present invention.” ([0037]). It can be accessed in a tool-less manner because upper and lower casing bodies are held together by snap hooks and fittings ([0029]). Net, the character layer is external because it can be seen through the outer casing 21 (translucent material such as ABS plastic [0030]).
If Applicant disagrees on the Examiner’s claim construction of “exterior” then Applicant is directed to the teachings of Urhman. Urhman teaches of a first and second exterior covers 130a and 130b, removable without the use of a tool and defines at least one opening that exposes a part of the first operational member ([0041-0044]) wherein a video game controller (Titl.) and of the use of removable faceplates (Abstr., [0003, 0041-0044], Fig. 6) and “at least one removable faceplate 130 surface, here illustrated as removable faceplates 130a and 130b. Beneath the removable faceplates, the enclosure includes an inner surface, illustrated in FIG. 6 as inner surface 150.” ([0019]). “The coupling mechanism for removably attaching the removable faceplates 130 may vary between implementations. In one embodiment, the attaching mechanisms includes a series of magnets, an example of which is magnet 132, embedded in the enclosure 110. These magnets line up with a magnetic material attached to the removable faceplates (e.g., iron screws, not shown), which when placed into contact with the magnets creates a non-negligible force for holding the removable faceplates in place. In one embodiment, the faceplates can be removed by hand.” ([0042]). Urhman invents this feature because “[p]layers may swap removable faceplates 130, providing a market for varying faceplates 130. These different faceplates may different decorative (e.g., color, pattern, design) or functional (e.g., surface texture) characteristics. For example, faceplates 130 may illustrate graphics from favored games, or the like. In a wireless implementation, batteries may be inserted into and removed from battery cavities 152, which are accessible via openings in the inner surface 150 once the removable faceplates 130 have been removed. ([0043-0044]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the character layer and exterior of Kidakarn with the removable faceplate of Urhman to achieve the predictable result of facilitating personalization of the game controller by substituting having to access a character layer with a simpler exterior faceplate. The Courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
14. Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidakarn, Moon further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0018173 to Urhman.
In Reference to Claim 17
Kidakarn discloses an input device (Fig. 2 controller 10) comprising:
an internal structure including a first frame (Fig. 2 upper internal bracket 223) and a second frame (Fig. lower internal bracket 224) formed by a material (PVC plastic {resin} [0031] and attached to the first frame (affixed [0031]);
a circuit board disposed between the first frame and the second frame (Fig. 2 circuit board 11), wherein the first frame, the second frame, and the circuit board are disposed in a stacked configuration (Fig. 2 dashed line indicating the stack configuration);
a lower case configured to cover a lower side of the internal structure and attached to the internal structure (Fig. 2 lower casting body 214 affixed to the upper internal bracket 223 [0031]); and
an upper case configured to cover an upper side of the internal structure and attached to at least one of the internal structures and the lower case (Fig. 2 upper casting body 213 detachably coupled with the lower casting body 214 [0028]).
Kidakarn discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include using materials and structures that enhance the rigidity of the control housing 21 ([0036). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the lower internal bracket 224 formed by a material having a higher rigidity than the upper internal bracket 223. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Moon.
Moon teaches of a handheld electronic device and method for manufacturing the housing (Titl.) and an exploded view showing a stacked configuration (Fig. 1). In Fig. 1, a printed circuit board 133 ([0076]) is disposed between bracket 131 (Fig. 1 [0075]) equivalent to Applicant’s first frame, and a periphery member 101b (Fig. 1 101b [0063]) equivalent to Applicant’s second frame. The bracket 131 is fixed to housing members 101a and 101b ([0078]). Moon discloses that bracket 131 is weak because of its thinness and is susceptible to bending and deformation ([0089]) and that periphery member 101b is made of resin and glass or carbon fiber to give it a rigidity higher than other resin parts such as housing member 101a which is made of resin alone ([0073]). Moon teaches this so that the rigidity of 101a is improved and loads suppressed ([0073]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the lower internal resin bracket 224 of Kidakarn with the resin reinforced with glass or carbon fiber of Moon to achieve the predictable result of the lower internal resin bracket being made with a reinforced resin material having a higher rigidity to improve the anti-defamation properties of the overall device. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Kidakam discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include a first exterior cover, removable without the use of a tool and defines at least one opening that exposes a part of the first operational member. Examiner construes “exterior” broadly but reasonably to be not an outermost layer but that which can be observed as opposed to components in the interior of the game controller. Kidakarn discloses a character layer 30 (Figs. 1 and 3, [0037]) disposed between the inner side of the outer casing 21 and the outer side of the internal enclosure 22 for enhancing a personalization of the control housing 20 ([0037]). “Accordingly, the character layer 30 can be selectively replaced by the player by simply detaching the outer casing 21 from the internal enclosure 22 and can be seen through the outer casing 21. The character layer 30 can be a film printed with a desired character corresponding to the video game to enhance the personalization and visual impression of the game controller of the present invention.” ([0037]). It can be accessed in a tool-less manner because upper and lower casing bodies are held together by snap hooks and fittings ([0029]). Net, the character layer is external because it can be seen through the outer casing 21 (translucent material such as ABS plastic [0030]).
If Applicant disagrees on the Examiner’s claim construction of “exterior” then Applicant is directed to the teachings of Urhman. Urhman teaches of a first and second exterior covers 130a and 130b, removable without the use of a tool and defines at least one opening that exposes a part of the first operational member ([0041-0044]) wherein a video game controller (Titl.) and of the use of removable faceplates (Abstr., [0003, 0041-0044], Fig. 6) and “at least one removable faceplate 130 surface, here illustrated as removable faceplates 130a and 130b. Beneath the removable faceplates, the enclosure includes an inner surface, illustrated in FIG. 6 as inner surface 150.” ([0019]). “The coupling mechanism for removably attaching the removable faceplates 130 may vary between implementations. In one embodiment, the attaching mechanisms includes a series of magnets, an example of which is magnet 132, embedded in the enclosure 110. These magnets line up with a magnetic material attached to the removable faceplates (e.g., iron screws, not shown), which when placed into contact with the magnets creates a non-negligible force for holding the removable faceplates in place. In one embodiment, the faceplates can be removed by hand.” ([0042]). Urhman invents this feature because “[p]layers may swap removable faceplates 130, providing a market for varying faceplates 130. These different faceplates may different decorative (e.g., color, pattern, design) or functional (e.g., surface texture) characteristics. For example, faceplates 130 may illustrate graphics from favored games, or the like. In a wireless implementation, batteries may be inserted into and removed from battery cavities 152, which are accessible via openings in the inner surface 150 once the removable faceplates 130 have been removed. ([0043-0044]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the character layer and exterior of Kidakarn with the removable faceplates of Urhman to achieve the predictable result of facilitating personalization of the game controller by substituting having to access a character layer with a simpler exterior faceplate. The Courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 19 and 20
Urhman teaches that the faceplates can be mounted over screws [0042] that is capable of the intended result of increasing a fixation strength of the upper and lower case {first frame and second frame} by providing another layer of protection over a portion of the case.
15. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidakarn in view of CN 1276551A to Alps Electric Co Ltd (Alps) and Moon.
In Reference to Claim 22
Kidakarn discloses an input device (Fig. 2 controller 10), comprising:
a first frame (Fig. 2 upper internal bracket 223);
a second frame (Fig. lower internal bracket 224) formed by a material (PVC plastic {resin} [0031] that is disposed in a stacked configuration with the first frame (Fig. 2 dashed line indicating the stack configuration between the upper and lower internal brackets) and is attached to the upper internal bracket (affixed [0031]) and overlaps edge protruding guiding slots 222 along an edge of each layer in the stack to accommodate joysticks 122 of the upper internal bracket (Figs. 1-3 [0026]);
a lower case configured to cover a lower side of the lower internal bracket {internal structure} and attached to at least one of the upper or lower internal brackets (Fig. 2 lower casting body 214 affixed to the upper internal bracket 223 [0031]); and
an upper case configured to cover an upper side of the upper internal bracket 23 {internal structure} and attached to at least one of the upper or lower internal brackets or lower casting body (Fig. 2 upper casting body 213 detachably coupled with the lower casting body 214 [0028]).
Kidakarn discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Additonally, Kidakarn has control holes 222 (Fig. 3) and a frame 224 that overlaps control holes 222 (Fig. 2) but lacks bracket 223 having at least one recessed portion formed at the edge and an attachment hole adjacent to the periphery of the recessed portion overlapped by the frame with an attachment hole and a fastener inserted through the holes. One of skill in the art would be aware of the configuration of Alps.
Alps teaches an input device (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising a first frame (Fig. 2 flexible
plate 3) with two curved recessed portions to accommodate levers 22 (Fig. ) overlapping by a board 21 (Fig. 2) formed at an edge of the first frame and at least one attachment portion disposed adjacent to the recessed portion (Fig. 1 and 2 showing recesses to accommodate buttons 22 and adjacent holes 43 in substrate 3 for positioning pins 42 of Fig. 2 to hold the position of the components within the controller).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to apply the configuration of Alps to modify the controller of Kidakarn with a recessed edge portion with adjacent holes in the upper and lower bracket for position pins to achieve the predictable result of assembling the internal structures within the controller, and install the edge recesses of Alps to achieve the predictable result of reducing the weight of the materials used to make the controller increasing the comfort for the player and material and shipping costs for the manufacturer.
The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Kidakarn also discloses using resins materials and configurations that enhance the rigidity of the control housing 21 ([0036). However, Kidakarn is not explicit of a lower internal bracket 224 formed by a material having a higher rigidity than the upper internal bracket 223. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Moon.
Moon teaches of a handheld electronic device and method for manufacturing the housing (Titl.) and an exploded view showing a stacked configuration (Fig. 1). In Fig. 1, a printed circuit board 133 ([0076]) is disposed between bracket 131 (Fig. 1 [0075]) equivalent to Applicant’s first frame, and a periphery member 101b (Fig. 1 101b [0063]) equivalent to Applicant’s second frame. The bracket 131 is fixed to housing members 101a and 101b ([0078]). Moon discloses that bracket 131 is weak because of its thinness and is susceptible to bending and deformation ([0089]) and that periphery member 101b is made of resin and glass or carbon fiber to give it a rigidity higher than other resin parts such as housing member 101a which is made of resin alone ([0073]). Moon teaches this so that the rigidity of 101a is improved and loads suppressed ([0073]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the lower internal resin bracket 224 of Kidakarn with the resin reinforced with glass or carbon fiber of Moon to achieve the predictable result of the lower internal resin bracket being made with a reinforced resin material having a higher rigidity to improve the anti-defamation properties of the overall device. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
16. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidakarn, Alps, Moon further in view of Otterbox Game Shell (Source: archives.com, otterbox.com at
https://www.otterbox.com/en-us/gaming-controller-shell for Mar 24, 2021 last accessed on Oct 6, 2026.
Kidakam discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose an exterior cover of a lower surface of the lower case. One of skill in the art would be aware or outer cases are widely available for handheld electronic devices and national brands like Otterbox.
According to archives.com. Otterbox was selling game shells for game controllers wherein the protective shell encased at least the lower portion of the game controller (the product page shows an exploded view of the case elements which wrap the entire controller from all sides). The copy to the right of the image reads “Make sure your advantage is protected and turn you Xbox controller into an expert device with the Xbox controller shell. Xbox controller skin augments your controller’s durability and makes it your own a sweat-reducing, no-slip grip for peak performance.”
It would require only routine skill in the art to apply the controller case to the controller of Kiodahkam such that the lower surface of the controller was protected by an exterior case to achieve the predictable result of achieving added durability and peak performance. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Conclusion
17. 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 extension fee 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.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
19. 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.
20. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
