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
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, 2, 6, 9, 10, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanachote (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0277470 herein’ known as ‘470) in view of Sava (U.S. Patent No. 4,459,578).
Re claims 1, 9, 10: ‘470 discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1, object 23: game controller) comprising:
a base having a top and a bottom surface (Fig. 1, object 30: the joystick has a base portion);
a plurality of active buttons juxtaposed with a top surface of the base, wherein at least some of the active buttons being manipulable to control a character in a computer game (see Fig. 1, objects 24 and 25, and paragraph [0054]: buttons for controlling a game character);
plural control buttons supported by the base and arranged in a single row, at least some of the control buttons being operable to input control signals to the apparatus (see Fig.1, object 26: operational inputs in a row); and
a lever extending through the base and manipulable to input analog signals to the computer game (see Fig. 1, object 30: joystick).
‘470 fails to disclose a plural active button arranged in two arcuate rows. However, ‘470 discloses a plurality of actuable buttons that can be arranged in a plurality of configurations at the discretion of the controller designer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to arrange the buttons of ‘470 in two arcuate rows as such is a merely a matter of design choice by the controller designer.
‘470 fails to disclose “an actuator coupled to a shaft of the lever, the actuator moving with the shaft and being coupled to at least one ring-shaped magnet to generate analog signals for input to the computer game.” However, Sava discloses within Fig. 5 of the invention, an actuator comprising the lower portion of the stick after the ball, object 508, which is coupled to a shaft of the lever as shown in object 504, the actuator moving with the shaft and being coupled to at least one ring-shaped magnet as shown in object 506 to generate analog signals for input to the computer game (column 5, lines 2-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the joystick input system of ’470 with that of Seva, as such would have produced the predictable results of creating input signals utilizing magnets.
Re claim 2: ‘470 discloses with respect to the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lever comprises a grip above the top surface of the base, the grip being disposed on a top end of a shaft and extending radially beyond the shaft, the shaft extending through the top surface of the base (see Fig. 1, object 32: the joystick comprises of a grip that is in the shape of a contorted ball, and thus it extends radially outward).
Re claim 6, 13, 14: ‘470 in view of Seva discloses with respect to the apparatus of claim 1, comprising plural magnetic sensors arranged in the base each being configured to output a respective signal when the magnet is moved against or toward the respective magnetic sensor wherein said sensors are Hall Effect sensors (see Seva Fig 5, objects 510, 512, 514, 516).
Re claim 8: ‘470 discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the shaft is integrally made with a collar that rocks in a receptacle of the base when the lever is moved (see Fig. 8, object 21: joystick collar).
Re claim 15 and 17: ‘470 discloses with respect to the CSC of claim 10, wherein the shaft is integrally made with a collar that rocks in a receptacle of the base when the lever is moved (see Fig. 8, object 21: joystick collar).
Re claim 16: ‘470 discloses with respect to the CSC of claim 10, wherein the grip extends radially beyond the shaft (see Fig. 1, object 32: the joystick comprises of a grip that is in the shape of a contorted ball, and thus it extends radially outward).
Re claim 21: ‘470 in combination with Sava discloses with respect to the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a cylinder and the ring-shaped magnet surrounds the cylinder (see Fig. 5, object 508, the magnetic ring surrounds the cylinder).
Re claim 22: ‘470 in combination with Sava discloses with respect to the method of claim 18, comprising engaging the actuator with the ring- shaped magnet (see Fig. 5, object 508 engages and actuator pole, which moves the magnet to create signals).
Re claim 23: ‘470 in combination with Sava discloses with respect to the method of claim 22, wherein the ring-shaped magnet receives a portion of the actuator therein (see Fig. 5, object 508 engages and actuator pole, which moves the magnet to create signals).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassoway (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0001106).
Re claim 4, 5,11, and 12: ’479 in combination with ‘646 fails to disclose with respect to the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the actuator is coupled to the shaft by a pin extending in the actuator and the shaft. However, Gassoway discloses a joystick, wherein a pin/screw connects an upper portion, to a lower actuator portion (Fig. 4, 406). While the upper portion is for a thumb joystick and not for a shaft and grip, because ‘470 discloses that the upper portion is shaft and grip, it is reasonable to assume that the pin would connect the actuator to the upper portion which is a shaft. Because the pin also is threaded, it also is considered a screw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the joystick of ‘470 with the pin or screw for the purpose of better securing the shaft and grip to the actuator and thus making the joystick more durable.
Regarding Claim 18, a majority of the claim language was previously addressed in the discussion of claim 3. However, ’470 in view of ‘646 fails to disclose engaging an actuator with the shaft near a second end thereof using a set screw or pin. However, Gassoway discloses a thumb joystick, wherein a pin/screw connects an upper portion, to a lower actuator portion (Fig. 4, 406). While the upper portion is for a thumb joystick and not for a shaft and grip, because ‘470 discloses that the upper portion is shaft, it is reasonable to assume that the pin would connect the actuator to the upper portion which is a shaft. Because the pin also is threaded, it also is considered a screw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the joystick of ‘470 with the pin or screw for the purpose of better securing the shaft and grip to the actuator and thus making the joystick more durable.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘470 in view of Ranta (U.S. Patent No. 11,969,646).
Re claim 7: ’470 fails to disclose with respect to the apparatus of Claim 6, wherein each magnetic sensor is radially spaced relative to the shaft ninety degrees from adjacent magnetic sensors. However, Ranta discloses a joystick with an actuator and a magnet that is surrounded by four Hall Effect magnometers that are radially spaced ninety degrees from one another (see Fig. 3 and column 6, lines 20-40, column 7 , lines 47-67; column 8, lines 1-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to space the magnometers of ‘470 and Seva in the arrangement of Ranta for the purpose of replicating left, right, down, and up joystick movements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-18, 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claims, which have been addressed by Watanachote (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0277470 herein’ known as ‘470) in view of Sava (U.S. Patent No. 4,459,578). For these reasons the claims are rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights