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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/26/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein the cantilever portion is configured to flex in response to a force applied to the cover satisfying a threshold amount of force”, however, the examiner cannot ascertain what is meant by "flex” such that the metes and bounds of the claims can clearly evaluated (how is “flex” evaluated? What determines the degree of “flex”?). The above limitation, result in failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The term “mils.” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mils.” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Examiner finds that because the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO's policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claims are indefinite, the claims are given broadest reasonable interpretation and prior art is applied as much as practically possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-13 & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yildiz et al. (US Patent Pub. 20210197078; referred to hereinafter as Yildiz).
Claims 1, 4, 15 & 19: Yildiz discloses a controller system (figure 1A), comprising, a processor (0010), and a controller comprising, a housing having a top surface (figure 1B), and a control disposed on the top surface of the housing and controllable by an index finger of a user of the controller (figure 1A, element 18 & 0044), the control comprising, a cover configured to move in response to a press on the cover by the index finger (figure 21 & 0084), a circuit board disposed behind the cover and within the housing (figure 22, circuit board), the circuit board having a cantilever portion, a main body portion, and a cutout defined in the circuit board between the cantilever portion and the main body portion (figure 21, wherein main body portion of circuit board between element 306 and element 56, discloses cantilever portion extending outwardly from main body portion and shown holding element 316, cutout between main body portion and cantilever portion), and a switch mounted to the circuit board on the cantilever portion and configured to provide, to the processor, data indicative of an actuation of the control based at least in part on the cover moving into engagement with the switch as a result of the press (figure 22), wherein the cantilever portion is configured to flex in response to a force applied to the cover satisfying a threshold amount of force (figure 21, element 316, is inherently capable of starting to flex when an excessive force is applied to the element).
Claims 2, 5 & 16: Yildiz discloses wherein a stiffness of the cantilever portion is such that the cantilever portion does not flex in response to a force of the press failing to satisfy the threshold amount of force (figure 21, element 316 is stiff structure).
Claims 3, 6 & 17: Yildiz discloses wherein the control is a bumper (figure 21, element 310).
Claim 7: Yildiz discloses the at least one surface is a top surface (figure 22, top surface), the housing has a front surface (figure 22) and a plane of the circuit board is substantially parallel to the front surface of the housing (figure 22).
Claims 8 & 18: Yildiz discloses wherein the cantilever portion and the main body portion are coplanar (figure 21, wherein all portions of the circuit are coplanar).
Claim 10: Yildiz discloses the circuit board comprises one or more traces associated with the switch, the one or more traces configured to deliver, to the processor, electrical signals corresponding to the data, and a width of an individual trace of the one or more traces is at least about 30 mils (0084-0086).
Claim 11: Yildiz discloses the circuit board comprises a plurality of traces associated with the switch, the plurality of traces configured to deliver, to the processor, electrical signals corresponding to the data (0083-0084), a first subset of the plurality of traces represents one or more primary traces (primary control) and a second subset of the plurality of traces represents one or more backup traces configured to deliver the electrical signals if the one or more primary traces become damaged due to flexion of the cantilever portion (0084, secondary control).
Claims 12 & 20: Yildiz discloses the cutout has a first width along a length of the cutout and a terminating end of the cutout has a second width greater than the first width (figure 21).
Claim 13: Yildiz discloses wherein the circuit board of the control is configured to be replaced without having to replace a main printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) of the controller (0044).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 & 14 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.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rundell (20150031452) refers to game controller assembly is mechanically and communicatively connected to a user computing device to be used to play games. The game controller assembly is detachable he coupled mechanically and electrically to the user computing device. For example, the user computing device may be a smart mobile phone. The game controller assembly can be mounted on the smart mobile phone and also be communicatively coupled to the smart phone for communications with the smart phone. The game controller is used to play games on the smart phone. The game controller assembly can also be used for other purposes, such as navigating web pages, watching video streams, interacting with other online users, interacting/socializing, etc.
Alghooneh (10,293,249) refers to haptic peripheral includes a housing, a deformable substrate coupled to the housing to be moveable thereto, and a smart material actuator coupled to a surface of the deformable substrate. The smart material actuator produces a force that deforms the deformable substrate relative to the housing in response to the control signal from a processor to thereby provide a haptic effect to a user of the haptic peripheral. The deformable substrate includes at least one user contact portion configured to contact the user and two opposing hinges. The deformable substrate also includes at least two stiff arms, each stiff arm extending between the user contact portion and one of the two opposing hinges. The stiff arms are relatively stiffer than the user contact portion and the hinges such that the deformable substrate is configured to increase the deformation of the deformable substrate relative to the housing.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights