DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 11,130,050) in view of Boev (US 2018/0161670).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a HID controller 20 with a strap 220 attached to a portion 211 of the HID controller to form a closed loop therewith, the strap sitting above an upper surface of the portion of the HID controller configured to be held by the user – see Figure 2. Nakagawa does not disclose the strap how the strap is secured to the controller and does not disclose the strap being retractable as claimed. Boev discloses an apparatus 100 comprising: a retractable strap 120 that is attached at a first strap end to an internal portion (116/121) of a human-interface-device (HID) controller comprising at least one of (1) an extended reality (XR) controller or (2) a mouse controller; a strap exit point located on an exterior surface of the HID controller (see Figure 3 directly below lead line 120); and an anchor 122 (see Figure between lead lines 143 and 111) on a portion of the HID controller, the anchor configured to removably secure a second strap end 121 to the HID controller, wherein when the second strap end is not secured to the anchor, the strap and controller do not form a closed loop. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the strap of Nakagawa retractable in the manner taught by Boev to store the strap out of the way when not needed by the user.
Regarding claim 2, the HID controller 20 of Nakagawa comprises inputs 212 and 231 as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Boev discloses pre-tensioned spool 121 disposed in an interior of the HID controller and configured to retract the strap into the interior of the HID controller.
Regarding claim 5, Boev discloses the second strap end at 122 comprises a tab (see large rectangular end with a hole therethrough on the end portion of strap 122 – Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Boev the anchor is co-located with the strap exit point – see Figure 3 showing the anchor point and strap exit point being directly opposed to one another around surface 111 and being aligned on an upper surface thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Boev discloses a button operator fastener 122 (paragraph 0033 last sentence).
Regarding claim 15, see Figures 2 and 3 of Boev showing that when the strap 120 is fully retracted into an interior of the HID controller, the second strap end at 122 extends past the exterior surface of the HID controller.
Regarding claims 16-20, the method steps as claimed would be satisfied in the normal operation of the modified Nakagawa/Boev controller as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9, 13 and 15 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 11,130,050) in view of Boev (US 2018/0161670), as applied to claim 3, and in further view of Bass et al. (US 7,458,488).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa/Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including coil spring 121 (see Boev), but does not disclose a ratchet mechanism. Bass teaches a similar retractable strap 110 on a portable device 105, the device having an internal pre tensioned spool 145 and a ratchet mechanism 156. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a ratchet mechanism with the spool of Boev to prevent the spool from rotating and loosening.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 11,130,050) in view of Boev (US 2018/0161670), as applied to claim 5, and in further view of Dackow (US 2012/0305725).
Regarding claims 6-8, Nakagawa/Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a tab being formed at the second end of the strap but does not disclose the various embodiments of the tab/anchor, specifically a tab hole/anchor pin, tab magnets/anchor magnets and a tab negative hook/anchor positive hook. Dackow teaches several alternate means of anchoring (at 300) the second free end of a strap 200 to a personal device – see Figures 9, 10 and 13. More specifically, Dackow discloses a tab 400 having a hole 404 surrounded by an outer tab material and being anchored by pin 450/452 (Figure 13), a tab formed as a magnet 237 anchored to an anchor magnet 362 (Figure 9), and a tab formed as a negative hook 239 and anchoring positive hook 382 (Figure 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace the anchor 122 of Boev with any of the alternative tab and anchors disclosed by Dackow as disclosed in Figures 9, 10, and 13 in order to provide alternative anchors that are known and accessible in the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Boev (US 2018/0161670), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Knoppert et al. (US 11,816,263).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Nakagawa/Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose sensors that detect the relative length or position of the strap as claimed. Knoppert discloses a similar controller 452 with a retractable hand strap 470, wherein the length and position are determined via various sensors within the controller (e.g. col. 10 lines 24-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide similar sensors and tensioning mechanism in the controller of Boev to enable quick adjustment of the strap to the user’s preferred strap length.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Boev (US 2018/0161670), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Birkestrand (US 8,851,142).
Regarding claim 12, Nakagawa/Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose brushes at the strap exit point. Birkestrand teaches a related retractable device wherein a retractable member moving through the exit point 38b, the exit point being lined with a flock or bush material 43 so the retractable member 18 is automatically cleaned when moved in and out of the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide brushes at the exit point of the Nakagawa/Boev device/strap to clean the strap as it is moved into and out of the controller. See Birkestrand col. 4 lines 41-44.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Boev (US 2018/0161670), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Bell et al. (US 5,615,811).
Regarding claim 14, Nakagawa/Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose a layer of low friction material at the strap exit point. Bell teaches a retractable strap section having friction reducing means 102/104 (specifically layers of polypropylene) used to provide a smooth surface against which the movable sections of the strap 10 can slide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a similar low friction material at any point on the Nakagawa/Boev device where the strap would slide, e.g. the exit point of the strap, in order to allow the strap to slide easily into and out of the controller housing. See Bell, col. 13 lines 49-67.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights