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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by An (US 6,429,849)
Claim 1. An discloses an operation device comprising:
an operation unit (12 in Fig. 2) that is moved by an operation of a user;
a first movable unit that enables the operation unit to move within a predetermined range (upper gimbal frame 162 and components in Fig. 4 move in the Y axis);
a first drive unit (Y motor 129 with gear and bracket in Fig. 5); and
a first driven unit that includes at least one component and is capable of moving an abutting portion of the first movable unit according to a driving force of the first drive unit (Move abutting portion or drive pins 206 and 208 of the movable unit; cols. 11:6-12:59; Fig. 5).
Claim 2. An discloses the operation device according to claim 1 further comprising: a second movable unit that enables the operation unit to move on a second axis different from a first axis on which the operation unit is capable of being moved by the first movable unit (lower gimbal frame 168 and components in Fig. 4 move on X axis);
a second drive unit (X motor 128 with gear and bracket in Fig. 5); and
a second driven unit that includes at least one component and is capable of moving an abutting portion of the second movable unit according to a driving force of the second drive unit (Move abutting portion or drive pins 242 and 244 of the movable unit; cols. 11:6-12:59; Fig. 5).
Claim 3. An discloses the operation device according to claim 2, wherein the first movable unit includes a first rotating body that enables the operation unit to be tilted with respect to the first axis by an operation of the user (bracket 260 rotate by the Y axis in Fig. 5; col. 11:6-12:59) and the second movable unit includes a second rotating body that enables the operation unit to be tilted with respect to the second axis by an operation of the user (Bracket 300 rotate around the X axis in Fig. 5; cols. 11:6-12:59).
Claim 4. An discloses the operation device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one component included in each of the first driven unit and the second driven unit has an end surface, and each of the first rotating body and the second rotating body is movable by contact between the end surface and the abutting portion (End surface or other end from the motor with slots 282 and 316 that is in contact with pins; Fig. 5).
Claim 6. An discloses the operation device according to claim 4, wherein the first drive unit and the second drive unit rotate the first driven unit or the second driven unit on a basis of presence or absence of a force sensation presentation request set in advance (cols. 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Claim 7. An discloses the operation device according to claim 6, wherein the first drive unit and the second drive unit rotate the first driven unit or the second driven unit in a case where the force sensation presentation request is set to be present (cols. 1: 56-67, 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Claim 8. An discloses the operation device according to claim 7, wherein in a case where the force sensation presentation request is set to be present, the first drive unit and the second drive unit apply a load in a rotation direction of the first rotating body according to the driving force by contact between the first driven unit and the abutting portion of the first rotating body, and apply a load in a rotation direction of the second rotating body according to the driving force by contact between the second driven unit and the abutting portion of the second rotating body (cols. 1: 56-67, 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Claim 9. An discloses the operation device according to claim 7, wherein in a case where the force sensation presentation request is set to be absent, the first drive unit and the second drive unit move the first driven unit and the second driven unit to positions not in contact with the operation unit when the operation unit is tilted within the predetermined rotation range (cols. 1: 56-67, 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Claim 10. An discloses the operation device according to claim 3, wherein a driving force of the first drive unit and the second drive unit is based on a force sensation value based on a characteristic of an operation object operated by tilting the operation unit (characteristics such as colliding with wall, moving through something or riding over bumpy road, etc.; cols. 1: 56-67, 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Claim 11. An discloses the operation device according to claim 10, wherein the force sensation value is calculated on a basis of a characteristic of an interference object that interferes with the operation object (produce corresponding feedback such as requiring torque or no or little rotation for the desired effect; etc.; cols. 1: 56-67, 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Claim 14. An discloses the operation device according to claim 10, wherein the driving force is based on a command value for driving the first drive unit or the second drive unit, the command value being generated on a basis of the force sensation value (This is inherent since the drive units provides the driving force/force feedback; cols. 1: 56-67, 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Claim 16. An discloses the operation device according to claim 14, wherein the first drive unit separates the end surface of the first driven unit from the abutting portion of the first rotating body by a predetermined offset distance and then causes the end surface of the first driven unit to collide with the abutting portion of the first rotating body in a case where an instantaneous force sensation presentation mode is set, and the second drive unit separates the end surface of the second driven unit from the abutting portion of the second rotating body by a predetermined offset distance and then causes the end surface of the second driven unit to collide with the abutting portion of the second rotating body in a case where the instantaneous force sensation presentation mode is set. (An discloses an end portion engages with the abutting portions 206 , 208, 242, 244 in Fig. 5 when the force sensation is present; 11:6-12:59. Therefore the end portion disengages/separates or does not provide force when the force sensation is not present.).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 6,429,849).
Claim 15. An discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that wherein in the command value, upon presentation of an instantaneous force sensation, intensity of feedback varies depending on a number of times that the instantaneous force sensation is presented. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. An discloses the feedback forces are applied to the control handle to convey to the user the physical sensation of an object controlled by the user in a game or simulation colliding with a wall, moving through mud, driving over a bumpy road, etc. The haptic feedback makes the game or simulation more realistic and entertaining (col. 1:56-66). The feedback provided according to the situation of the game or simulation (col. 11:63-12:2). It is implied or at least would have been obvious to provide a feedback intensity that is dependent a number of times the instantaneous force sensation is presented in order to provide a realistic simulation or game. For instance, if there are a number of forces in the same direction, the intensity in that direction would be greater. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the to modify An’s invention and provide a feedback intensity that is dependent a number of times the instantaneous force sensation is present in order to provide the predictable result of providing a feedback that is realistic and in accordance to the simulation or game
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 6,429,849) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sawada (US 2021/0149490).
Claim 12. An discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that the force sensation value is calculated on a basis of an angle at which the operation unit is tilted. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to force feed back systems for input devices, Sawada discloses an operation devices in which the force sensation value is calculated on a basis of an angle at which the operation unit is tilted (paragraphs 49-51, 61, 69-70). This provides a feedback simulation when the feedback requires a certain amount of input. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the to modify An’s invention and calculate the force sensation value based on an angle at which the operation unit is tilted in order to provide the predictable result of providing a feedback simulation when the feedback requires a certain amount of input.
Claim 13. An discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that the force sensation value is calculated on a basis of an elapsed time from when the driving force is presented. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to force feedback systems for input devices, Sawada discloses an operation devices in which the force sensation value is calculated on a basis of an elapsed time from when the driving force is presented (paragraphs 50, 61-62). This provides a feedback simulation when the feedback requires a certain duration of input. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the to modify An’s invention and calculate the force sensation value based on an elapsed time from when the driving force is presented in order to provide the predictable result of providing a feedback simulation when the feedback requires a certain duration of input.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 6,429,849) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rihn (US 2018/0143688).
Claim 17. An discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that the command value is generated on a basis of the force sensation value that is continuously calculated upon presentation of a continuous force sensation. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to force feedback systems for input devices, Rihn discloses that feedback input systems continually provide feedback to the user throughout the game (paragraphs 3-6, 59). Rihn also discloses that the values of the feedback is calculated and updated continuously to eliminate fatigue (paragraphs 40, 59, 85, 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the to modify An’s invention and calculate the force sensation value that is continuously calculated upon presentation of a continuous force sensation. in order to provide the predictable result of providing a feedback simulation throughout the simulation or game play.
Claim 19. An discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that a vibration presentation unit that vibrates on a basis of the command value. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to force feedback systems for input devices, Rihn discloses that feedback input systems continually provide feedback to the user throughout the game (paragraphs 3-6, 59). Rihn discloses that conventionally, video game provide feedback with vibration (paragraph 4). Depending on game action and command values (control signals received from the computer system), the process send haptic output commands including vibrations (paragraphs 37, 56, 63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the to modify An’s invention and a vibration presentation unit that vibrates on a basis of the command value in order to provide a predictable result of providing a tactile feedback that vibrates the input device and provide an engaging gaming experience.
20. Claim An discloses that the operation device according to claim 19 further comprising a sensor that detects the driving force generated by contact between the first driven unit and the first rotating body or between the second driven unit and the second rotating body, wherein the first drive unit and the second drive unit perform driving on a basis of the driving force held in association with the command value (This is inherent since the drive units provides the driving force/force feedback according to the computer/command values; cols. 1: 56-67, 3:26-50, 11:6-12:59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights