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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 6/2/26. The arguments set forth have been addressed herein below. Claims 10-13, 15-24, and 26-31 remain pending, Claims 1-9, 14, and 25 are canceled, Claims 10, 13, 16, 18, 22-24, 28-29 are currently amended, and Claims 30-31 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-12, 15-16, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strahle (US 2018/0250587).
Claims 10 and 29: Strahle discloses a method of manufacturing an input device, the input device comprising: a trigger button (110, 200) including a main body (¶ 50-54, the trigger 110/200 including the extension arm 111/211), the trigger button being configured to move about an axis (defined by pin 116) that extends along a first direction; a stopper member (combination (120, 121) or (220, 221)) movable between: a first position for allowing movement of the trigger button over a first range, and a second position, wherein the stopper member in the second position limits movement of the trigger button to a second range smaller than the first range by abutting the main body of the trigger button (¶ 50-54); and an operation member (122, 222) engaging with the stopper member and configured to move in a second direction different from the first direction to move the stopper member between the first position and the second position (Figs. 1-4c and 6-8c, ¶ 41-58, 78-90).
Claim 11: Strahle discloses wherein the input device further comprises an exterior member (game controller housing 150), wherein the stopper member is housed inside the exterior member, and at least a part of the operation member is exposed to an outside of the exterior member (see above, Figs. 1-4c and 6-8c).
Claim 12: Strahle discloses the input device further comprising: an exterior member having a curved external surface (housing (150) as seen in Figs. 1-2, 6-7), wherein the stopper member is housed inside the exterior member and is able to move along the curved external surface (see above, emphasis on Figs. 6-7 and descriptions thereof which illustrate the movement along the curved external surface).
Claim 15: Strahle discloses wherein the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction (see above, Figs. 1-4c and 6-8c illustrate that the operation member moves perpendicular or orthogonal to the direction of movement of the trigger button).
Claim 16: Strahle discloses wherein the stopper member is configured to be disposed at the first position, the second position, and a third position for regulating a movable range of the trigger button to a third range between the first range and the second range, the third position being a position between the first position and the second position (see above, ¶ 89).
Claim 28: Strahle discloses the input device comprising a guide frame attached to a core unit, the guide frame including a guide hole opening in an upward-downward direction through which a portion of the operation member is passed to guide the operation member along the straight line (see above, Figs. 1-4c and 6-8c, ¶ 43, 44-45, 80-81, 87).
Claims 30-31: Strahle teaches wherein the main body of the trigger button includes a lower surface and a rear edge of the lower surface, and the stopper member in the second position limits the movement of the trigger button to the second range by abutting the rear edge of the lower surface (Figs. 3, 4a-c, 7, 8a-c, ¶ 51-54, 69-72, 84-90, see below screenshots).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
561
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strahle (US 2018/0250587).
Claim 13: Strahle teaches the above, in addition to the operation member configured to move along a straight line (Fig. 2b, ¶ 43-45, Figs. 6-7, 8b, ¶ 80-81, 87), but lacks explicitly suggesting the stopper member configured to move along a curved external surface of the trigger button. However, applicant fails to disclose that having the stopper member move along a curved external surface of the trigger button solve any stated problem, provides an advantage, or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the stopper member movement of Strahle, or applicant’s invention, would perform the same function of limiting a movable range of the trigger button, regardless of the direction of movement of the stopper member. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Strahle to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Strahle.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strahle (US 2018/0250587) in view of Ironmonger (US 2024/0075382).
Claim 17: Strahle teaches the above, in addition to the input device further comprising: a first sensor configured to detect a position of the operation member or the stopper member (¶ 89); and a second sensor (¶ 58-59), but lacks explicitly suggesting a circuit board mounted with the first sensor and the second sensor. Strahle at least teaches various circuitry within the input device (¶ 59-60, Fig. 2) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 38, 88). Furthermore, an analogous art of Ironmonger teaches a similarly structured input devices having circuitry including sensors (130, 132), etc that are mounted on a circuit board (150) within the input device (Abstract, Figs. 3-6, ¶ 67, 112, 115-116, 123-120, 133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the input device, particularly, the first and second sensors, of Strahle such that the sensors are mounted on a circuit board as taught by Ironmonger because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing circuitry within an input device in which at least Strahle is intended (see above). Such a modification would have been considered to mere routine to one of ordinary skill in the art and provide increase control of the gaming controller or input device (Ironmonger - ¶ 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-24 and 26-27 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Strahle fails to teach “wherein the stopper member in the second position limits movement of the trigger button to a second range smaller than the first range by abutting the main body of the trigger button”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner agrees that Strahle “describes a stopper member ("blocking portion") that engages with an arm extension than extends from the trigger button”. The claim language suggests "the stopper member limits movement of the trigger button ... by abutting the main body of the trigger button"; however, such limitations do not exclude the arm extension of Strahle. Strahle teaches ) a trigger button including a main body (¶ 50-54, the trigger 110/200 including the extension arm 111/211). Strahle discloses that the “trigger 110 includes arm extension 111” (¶ 52) which given its broadest reasonable interpretation suggests that the arm extension is part of the trigger button and not separate from the trigger button; therefore Strahle teaches a main body, wherein "the stopper member limits movement of the trigger button ... by abutting the main body of the trigger button" as required by the claimed limitations.
Based on the above, the rejection is clarified and herein maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
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 TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights