Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of an Information Disclosure Statements on 8/27/2026 has been received and considered.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0286943 Vance (Fig. 3, annotated, is shown below for convenience, but the entire reference is relevant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0273325 to Falc.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Vance discloses a game controller (e.g., see at least Fig. 1, see also paragraph 29 for discussion of a game controller 10) for a mobile device (e.g., see at least paragraph 34 that discusses a cavity 24 for supporting a cell phone; see also paragraph 47 that discusses “interfacing the game controller 10 to the mobile phone”), the game controller comprising: a first handle (e.g., see at least Fig. 1, including control pad 22 and rounded end 14; see also Fig. 1 for image of a first handle supporting control pad 22; see also Fig. 3 above that shows annotated indication of “First Handle”); and a second handle (e.g., see at least Fig. 1, including control pad 24 and rounded end 16; see also Fig. 1 for image of a second handle supporting control pad 24; see also Fig. 3 above that shows annotated indication of “Second Handle”); wherein the first handle comprises: at least one user input device (e.g., see at least Fig. 1, including control pad 22 as an input device; see also Fig. 1 for image of input control pad 22); a top surface (e.g., see at least Fig. 1, including surface adjacent control pad 22; see also Fig. 1 for image of a top surface adjacent control pad 22); and an overhang (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 3, resilient clip 44; see also paragraph 34 for discussion of left and right resilient clips 44 and 46) elevated above the top surface of the first handle (e.g., see Fig. 3, annotated, that best shows overhang 44 above the top surface of the first handle) and configured to contact a top portion of a mobile device positioned between the first and second handles (e.g., see at least paragraph 34 for discussion of elements 44 and 46 securing the top surface of a cell phone), wherein the overhang comprises a notched-out thumb-clearance region (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 3, annotated above, that shows location of a notched-out thumb-clearance region, that is extra space for a user’s thumb on an input device adjacent the overhang);
[claim 3] wherein the overhang comprises a J-curve (e.g., see Fig. 3 that is annotated above, wherein resilient clip 44 has a “J” shape)
[claim 4] wherein a length of the overhang in a first direction is less than a length of the mobile device in the first direction (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2 show resilient clip 44 only extends part of the distance between edges of the game controller, since this is functional language because the mobile device is not positively claimed, it is presumed that mobile phones exist that would extend beyond the length of the resilient clips);
[claim 5] wherein a length of the overhang in a first direction is less than a length of the first handle in the the direction (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2 show resilient clip 44 only extends part of the distance between edges of the game controller);
[claim 6] wherein the first handle comprises at least one additional overhang configured to contact at least one additional top portion of the mobile device (e.g., see at least Figs. 1 and 2 that show each overhang has two points of contact; see at least paragraph 34 for discussion of resilient clips touching the corners of the cell phone);
[claim 7] wherein the notched-out thumb-clearance region provides 0.5 mm to 5 mm of clearance (e.g., see Fig 1, 2, and 3, wherein the Examiner estimates based on a standard game controller input button being approximately 10mm in diameter that a user’s would have 0.5mm to 5mm of clearance when analyzing the scale of Figs. 1-3, the Examiner acknowledges that patent figures are not necessarily drawn to scale but they give at least some point of reference in this case);
[claim 8] wherein the overhang is positioned away from a grip area of the first handle (e.g., see Fig. 3 shows annotated above where resilient claim 44 is positioned away from a grip area);
[claim 9] wherein the second handle comprises a second overhang configured to contact another top portion of the mobile device (e.g., see Figs. 1-3 and paragraph 34 that show/discuss a second resilient clip 46 that engages a top portion of a cell phone);
[claim 13] wherein a size of the overhang in a first direction is about 2 mm to 6 mm (e.g., see Figs. 2 and 3 that show resilient clip 44 extending towards the center of the game controller in what appears to be approximately 2mm to 6mm);
[claim 14] wherein a size of the overhang in a first direction is about 30 mm to 55 mm (e.g., see Fig. 2 that show resilient clip 44 extending towards the top/bottom edges of the game controller in what appears to be approximately 30mm to 55mm).
With regard to claim 15, Vance discloses a game controller (e.g., see Fig. 1, game controller 10) for a mobile device (e.g., see paragraph 34), the game controller comprising: a first handle (e.g., see Fig. 1, adjacent rounded end 14); a second handle (e.g., see Fig. 1, adjacent rounded end 16); and a bridge coupling the first and second handles (e.g., see Figs. 1-3, phone cavity 26 spans between right and left handles); wherein: the first and second handles each comprise a respective: top handle surface (e.g., see Fig. 3, annotated); first coupling surface adjacent to the bridge (e.g., see Figs 1-3, resilient clip 44 is equivalent to claimed first coupling surface); and second coupling surface raised above the top handle surface and the first coupling surface (e.g., see Figs 1-3, resilient clip 46 is equivalent to claimed second coupling surface), wherein the first and second coupling surfaces are configured to mechanically secure, to the game controller, a mobile phone positioned between the first and second coupling surfaces (e.g., see at least paragraph 34 for discussion of coupling cell phone with game controller between resilient clips 44 and 46); and the second coupling surfaces of the first and second handles are symmetrical and both have a length of at least 2 mm (e.g., see Figs 1-3 that show that resilient clips 44 and 46 are symmetrical, and each have a length at least 2 mm when compared to a normal input button being approximately 10mm in diameter);
[claim 16] wherein the second coupling surfaces of the first and second handles have a length of 2 - 6 mm in a first direction (e.g., see Figs. 2 and 3 that show resilient clip 44 extending towards the center of the game controller in what appears to be approximately 2mm to 6mm);
[claim 17] wherein the second coupling surfaces of the first and second handles have a thickness of at least 0.9 mm (e.g., see Fig. 3 that appears to show a handle thickness greater than 0.9mm when compared to a normal input button scale);
[claim 18] wherein the second coupling surfaces of the first and second handles have a thickness of 0.9 – 3 mm (e.g., see Fig. 3 that appears to show a handle thickness between 0.9mm to 3mm when compared to a normal input button scale);
[claim 19] wherein the second coupling surfaces of the first and second handles both have a length of 30 - 55 mm in a first direction (e.g., see Fig. 2 that show resilient clip 44 extending towards the top/bottom edges of the game controller in what appears to be approximately 30mm to 55mm);
[claim 20] wherein the first handle further comprises at least one additional coupling surface raised above the top handle surface and the first coupling surface (e.g., see at least Figs. 1 and 2 that show each overhang has two points of contact; see at least paragraph 34 for discussion of resilient clips touching the corners of the cell phone); and
[claim 21] wherein the second coupling surface comprises an overhang (e.g., see Fig. 3, annotated that shows an overhang).
With regard to claim 22, Vance discloses a game controller (e.g., see Fig. 1, game controller 10) comprising: a first handle (e.g., see Fig. 3 as annotated) comprising a first plurality of user input devices (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 2 that show input devices 22); and a second handle (e.g., see Fig. 3 as annotated) comprising a second plurality of user input devices (e.g., see Figs 1 and 2 that shows input devices 24); wherein the first handle comprises: a top surface (e.g., see Fig. 3 as annotated); and an overhang (e.g., see Fig. 3 as annotated) elevated above the top surface and configured to contact a top portion of a mobile device positioned between the first and second handles (e.g., see at least paragraph 34 for discussion of coupling cell phone with game controller between resilient clips 44 and 46), wherein a ramp angle between the top surface and the overhang is at least 140 degrees (e.g., see at least Fig. 3, annotated, that shows a ramp angle of approximately 145 degrees as measure by the Examiner with a protractor); and
[claim 23] wherein the ramp angle is 142 degrees (e.g., see at least Fig. 3 that shows a ramp angle of approximately 145 degrees as measured in Fig. 3 by the Examiner with a protractor, wherein 145 degrees is approximately 142 degrees).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 22, Vance discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding a game controller including a first and second handles are moveable laterally outward with respect to each other to receive a mobile device between the first and second handles.
In the same field of endeavor, Falc teaches a game controller including a first and second handles are moveable laterally outward with respect to each other to receive a mobile device between the first and second handles (e.g., see at least Figs. 1-4 that shows a game controller with laterally moveable handles 11/12 for receiving a mobile device 20; see also at least paragraphs 36-38)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Vance with lateral moveable handles as taught by Falc in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, providing lateral moveable handles allows for securely receiving mobile devices of different widths.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vance in view of Falc and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0281422 to Kessler.
With regard to claim 2, Vance discloses all of the recited elements but is silent regarding an overhang with an S-shaped curve.
In the same field of endeavor, Kessler teaches a game controller with an overhang having an S-shaped curve (e.g., see Figs. 2, 11 and 12 that show overhangs 22 and 24, wherein an S-shaped curve is visible in Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Vance with an S-shaped curve overhang taught by Kessler in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, an S-shaped curve is a design choice that provides an overhang with the shape necessary to limit movement of a mobile device.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vance in view of Falc and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0261695 to Coe (Fig. 2b, annotated, shown below for convenience)
With regard to claims 10-12, Vance discloses all of the recited elements but fails to disclose a top surface tilt, being about 4 degrees or about 3.56 degrees.
In the same field of endeavor, Coe teaches a game controller with a top surface having approximately a 4-degree tilt (e.g., see Fig. 2B, annotated as measured by the Examiner with a protractor, the Examiner notes that 4 degrees is also about 3.56 degrees).
PNG
media_image2.png
375
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Vance with 4-degree top surface tilt as taught by Coe in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, providing a slight top surface tilt improves ergonomics that improves user comfort.
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vance in view of Falc and further in view of legal precedent under MPEP 2144.04.
If it is held that Vance fails to support the exact size or dimensions as claimed in claims 4, 5, 7, and 13-23, then the Examiner relies upon MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (Gardener v. TEC Syst., Inc.) that it would been obvious to modify the relative dimensions of Vance.
Since Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of the criticality of the specific dimensions, the Examiner makes an alternative rejection that the minor differences in dimensions would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill art because the modified dimensions would not perform differently than those disclosed in the prior art.
If Applicant is able to clarify the critical nature of the specific dimensions that are not shown in the art, then those recited claim features may be considered non-obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 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.
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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights