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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0153038 to Yang in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0071216 to Samperi.
With regard to claim 1, Yang discloses a game controller, comprising a shell with an accommodation cavity (0043), a control circuit board is fixedly installed in the accommodation cavity and a function key module which is electrically connected to the control circuit board and comprises more than two function keys (figs. 2 and 3; 0002-0004; 0030; 0034; 0036), wherein: the control circuit board is correspondingly equipped with a plurality of unction control modules, each function control module is respectively connected with the function key module to give each function key a corresponding function and form a different function sorting layout, the function key module also comprises a function switching module for switching the function sorting layout corresponding to the function key, the function switching module changes the function sorting layout of the function key by switching on different function control modules (figs. 2 and 3; 0002-0004; 0030; 0034; 0036).
While commonly known, Yang is not explicitly clear about a bottom shell and a surface shell. However, Samperi teaches a bottom shell, a surface shell that butts up against the bottom shell to enclose an accommodation cavity (fig. 2; 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Samperi with the disclosure of Yang in order to produce a game controller shell that is quickly assembled but allows for a circuit board to be quickly put into the shell by having a top and bottom shell that accommodate the circuit board and then connect together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regard to claim 2, Yang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of this claim. In particular Yang does not appear to disclose “a paddle for switching on any one of the function control modules protrudes from the edge of the function piece…the driving mechanism drives the function piece to rotate at a predetermined angle so that the paddle connects to the function control module at a predetermined position,” as required by the claim.
Claims 3-10 all depend ultimately from claim 2 and thus are also found allowable but for depending upon a previously rejected claim (claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715