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
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0130706 to LaCroix in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2012/0127088 to Pance.
In Reference to Claim 1
LaCroix discloses a system for generating motion simulation in gaming (Abstr., Fig. 1 10), comprising:
a haptic engine including a processing unit (Fig. 1 22 [0046], see also Fig. 4 and Fig. 25 haptic effect engine 2510 [0131-0132]) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer instructions (Fig. 1 14 [0047], Fig. 25 firmware 2570 [0133]) which, when executed by the processing unit, cause the processing unit to implement:
receiving an input from a game controller (Fig. 1 30), the input from the game controller configured to cause an action in a video game ([0040-0041, 0151], Fig. 31 3140 [0151]);
in response to a receipt of the input, retrieving at least one motion code associated with the input in a database, the motion code being representative of a haptic effect to be performed by a motion platform ([0062] describes motion codes (attribute parameters) and motion signals (definitions) in a stored in a database (haptic file), see also Fig. 31 3170-3180); and
obtaining a motion signal corresponding to the at least one motion code and outputting the motion signal to the motion platform for the haptic effect to be performed at the motion platform in synchronicity with the action occurring in the video game ([0061-0062} signal sent to peripheral such as a rumble pack in concert with the video game event, see also Fig. 31 3190 [0153-0154]).
LaCroix discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t refer to his attribute parameters as codes associated with the haptic definitions/signals. One of skill in the art would be aware of the haptic devices of Pance.
According to Pance, haptic signals are associated with a look-up value (Abstr.). In particular, “[t]he look-up value may correspond to an entry in a look-up table storing a corresponding control signal for driving the haptic actuator or a set of corresponding control signals for driving the haptic actuator.” [0057]. See also referencing a relational database such as a look up table storing one of more input gestures [0064].
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to amplify the haptic file structure of LaCroix with the added relational database and look-up table value and structure of Pance to achieve the predictable result of better knowing that inputs translate into codes that can be looked up to find associated haptic signals to send to a peripheral haptic device. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 2 and 3
LaCroix discloses receiving a user input indicative of at least one haptic effect {parameter} to be paired with a given input from the game controller, and storing at least one motion code {parameter} corresponding to the received haptic effect in the database for the retrieving (Fig. 6, designing a trigger haptic effect [0073-0075]).
In Reference to Claim 4
LaCroix discloses receiving two or more of the haptic effects to be paired with a single one of the given input from the game controller in the pairing, and storing two or more of the at least one motion code corresponding to the received haptic effects in the database for the retrieving (a definition pairing an input parameter can also be paired with multiple effects where “at a trigger haptic effect is scaled for one or more targeted motors” [0075] and stored in the haptic file [0073]).
In Reference to Claim 5
LaCroix discloses wherein obtaining the motion signal includes mixing the two or more of the at least one motion code associated with the single one of the given input (“trigger instructions to one or more triggers” and scaled to one or more targeted motors [0065, 0075]).
In Reference to Claim 7
LcCroix discloses wherein the storing includes storing a plurality of the motion codes in the database, each in association with a respective given input where LaCroix [0062] stores a plurality of attribute parameters in combination with the terminology of look-up values of Pance [0057].
In Reference to Claim 8
LaCroix discloses operating a graphical user interface receiving the user inputs indicative of the at least one haptic effect ([0073], Fig. 6).
In Reference to Claim 9
LaCroix discloses a motion platform for performing the haptic effect in synchronicity with the action occurring in the video game ([0044, 0153-1054, Fig. 31 3160-3180).
In Reference to Claim 10-12
LaCroix discloses wherein obtaining the motion signal includes synthesizing the motion signal from instructions corresponding to the motion code (amplitude and frequency [0062, 0083] corresponding to the motion attribute parameters).
In Reference to Claim 13
LaCroix discloses capturing video and/or audio data from the video game (0044] animation data, key frame), and processing the video and/or audio data ([0044]); and obtaining a motion signal as a function of the processing ([0044]), and outputting the motion signal to the motion platform for a haptic effect to be performed at the motion platform in response to the processing (Fig. 31 3190).
In Reference to Claim 14
LaCroix discloses mixing the motion signal of the processing with the motion signal corresponding to the response to the receipt of the input [0132], Fig. 25 2530, see also where the mixer “can mix or prioritize one or more haptic effect definitions” [0120] and “for multiple haptic effects at the same time” [0132]).
In Reference to Claim 15
LaCroix discloses wherein the at least one motion code includes an array of motion samples with a sample rate where in Fig. 12 there are samples for multiple channels and a filter for sample rates (Fig. 12 1210-1220).
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCroix, Pance further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2021/0402292 to Chow.
LaCroix discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose storing is under a user profile. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Chow.
Chow teaches that haptic responses (Titl.) include identifying a user profile of the user to generate a haptic notification in accordance to haptic settings in the profile (Fig. 6 notifications are provided to the player are customized to the player's needs and play style [0064]). Chow provides this for the haptics to be “specific to the player” and is used “to guide or direct the player toward the interactive task within the game scenario of the game.” [0103].
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the haptic file of LaCroix with the user profile of Chow in order to achieve the predictable result of providing haptics that are customized to the player needs and in so doing increase the success of game play and enjoyment of the game for the player. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
7. Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCroix, Pance further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2019/0073037 to Grant.
LaCroix discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose identifying the input as a group selector entry, wherein identifying the input as the group selector entry includes disabling a current motion code associated with the input, and enabling a subsequent motion code associated with the input, and obtaining the motion signal corresponding to the subsequent motion code. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Grant.
According to Grant (Fig. 6 72-76) there is an operation that is the claimed group entry selector entry in step 72 where there is a selection through the touch sensitive electronic display. [0095]. Examiner understands this selection as a group selector entry. This haptic motion selected is carried out until another selection occurs at which time the haptic motion in step 74 is adjusted to the new selection [0096]).
It would require only routine skill in the art to combine LaCroix and Grant to achieve the predictable result of adjusting haptic selections to achieve the predictable result of following the actions in a video game where the haptic effects follow or are dictated by the dynamic nature of the game and the changing game state.
In Reference to Claim 20
Grant teaches that the haptic selected each time in step 72 is the current motion code which when executed is stored even momentarily while being executed (Fig. 6 72 [0095-0097]).
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCroix, Pance, Grant further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2017/0168571 to Levesque.
LaCroix discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a default motion code. One of skill in the art would be aware of Levesque.
According to Levesque, who teaches of automated haptic setting (Titl.) where products are configured with initial default settings [0012] because it is difficult to prescribe setting for an optimal experience across many users. However, these initial defaults settings are able to be modified and based on user preferences and or because they may just dislike the default settings [0041]. Consequently, the system (Fig. 4) collects data on client haptic devices to determine if the user maintains the initial default settings or has modified the default settings ([0048]). Levesque provides this functionality because “default settings for haptic content are typically the same for all users and thus may be acceptable for some of the users, while being unacceptable for others” [0003].
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the haptic motion parameters of LaCroix with initial default codes and modified default codes of Levesque to achieve the predictable result of allowing players to set the haptics according to their personal preferences especially when they dislike the settings of the product when in came straight out of the box. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
11. 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.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights