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 Claim 6 to recite that the first or second frame may be formed by resin which has support in Applicant’s specification [0035]. Thus, the rejection under 35 USC § 112, first paragraph is withdrawn.
Applicant has cancelled Claim 5, thus the rejection under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph is withdrawn.
Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to recite a circuit board disposed between the first frame and the second frame and all are in a stacked configuration (Remarks 6 filed 5/18/2026). Applicant has added new Claim 22 to recite recessed portions. Examiner presents for Applicant’s consideration the combination of Kidakarn in view of Moon and Kidakarn, Moon, in view of Alps, respectively. Thus, the rejections of the Claims 1 and 22 are maintained.
Examiner notes that the previous Office Action did not reflect Applicant’s preliminary amendment of the Claims 8-20 filed 2/12/2026 which are now addressed along with new Claims 21 and 22. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12-22 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, Line 2: Change “define” to – defines --.
Appropriate correction 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
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.
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 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 an attachment hole for a common screw is inserted formed in each of the upper and lower interior brackets. 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 formed 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 common screws of Date to the upper and lower interior brackets and lower casing 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 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, Ambinder. 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 exterior cover, 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 21 and 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. However, the reference does not disclose the upper internal bracket 223 comprising at least one recessed portion formed at an edge of the upper internal bracket. One of skill in the art would have been aware of the teachings 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 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 pins 42). Alps also teaches of a second frame (Fig. 2 base plate 21) overlapping the recessed portions of the first frame.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the edge protruding guiding slots of Kidakarn with 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.
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.
In Reference to Claim 21
See the rejection of Claims 1 and 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 17-20 are 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.
16. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of references do not teach or suggest a second exterior cover which further is attached to a lower surface of the lower case or covers a plurality of attachment holes formed in the lower case to increase a fixation strength of the upper case and the lower case {first frame and the second frame}. Other references not relied upon include U.S. Pat. No. 2014/0018173, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0326448, and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0230495 each teaching of game controllers but not of a second frame in the stack. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0103025 and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0045593 each teaching of game controllers but not of a second frame or of a circuit board in the stack or edge recesses. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0361222 teaching of a game controller with circuit boards on each frame but not of a separate circuit board in the center of the stack or of edge recesses.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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
Prosecution Insights