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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a medium storing a program used for a game machine, comprising various physical parts (e.g., operation part, signal output part, etc.). It is reasonably clear that Applicant intended for the game machine to comprise the physical parts. Compare Claim 12 with Claim 1. However, the claim is written as if the recording medium comprises the parts. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
The following claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a non-structural term, which is not preceded by a structural modifier, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function:
an operation part that includes an operation surface (claims 1 and 12)
a signal output part configured to output (claims 1 and 12)
an operation-position detector configured to detect (claims 1 and 12)
a load detector configured to detect (claims 1 and 12)
a processor configured to calculate (claim 1)
a storage configured to store (claim 1)
Because these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claims 1-12 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0117459 to Nakayama et al. (hereinafter Nakayama), in view of US 2017/0045976 to Bushnell et al. (hereinafter Bushnell).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Nakayama teaches:
a game machine comprising and a non-transitory computer reader recording medium storing a program configured to be in operable communication with (¶ 0084 discloses a controller in communication with a computing device or game console):
an operation part that includes an operation surface (e.g., Fig. 1, controller 22, that includes a touch panel 26) on which an operation is performed by an operator (¶ 0059 discloses a user touching or swiping on the touch panel);
a signal output part configured to output an output signal in accordance with an operation position to which an operation is performed on the operation surface (¶ 0059 discloses the touch panel further comprising a touch screen that outputs images corresponding to inputs received. For example, the touchscreen can provide a visual trace of a line where a user swiped. Said outputs are necessarily generated by an output signal in accordance with the data captured on the operation surface);
an operation-position detector configured to detect the operation position in accordance with one or more output signals, each being the output signal, output from the signal output part (¶ 0057 discloses the touch panel employed with a touch-sensitive technology that can be capacitive. In a capacitive touchscreen, a screen controller measures a change in capacitance at the point of contract of a finger, thereby detecting the position);
a storage configured to store control data (Fig. 12 and ¶ 0112 teach that a system 700 necessarily needs a storage with a software driver to communicate with a controller 702); and
the processor calculating the state of an object by referencing control data in accordance with the operation position detected by the operation-position detector, and a current state of the object (¶ 0064 discloses the touch panel 26, capable of controlling the motion, orientation, or position of any object within a virtual environment. Such an action would require altering the current state of the object according to control data generated by the operation-position detector).
Nakayama lacks:
a load detector configured to detect the magnitude and the direction of the load applied to the operation part in accordance with one or more of the output signals output from the signal output part;
an output signal in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of a load applied to the operation part; and
the storage in communication with the processor wherein: the processor calculates the state of the object by referencing the control data, in accordance with the magnitude and the direction of the load detected by the load detector, and a current state of the object.
However, Bushnell teaches an input device (e.g., a trackpad member in the abstract) comprising:
a load detector configured to detect the magnitude and the direction of a load applied to an operation part (¶ 0044 discloses measurement of shear force, that is force that lies in the plane of the flat surface of the trackpad, and ¶ 0049 discloses measurement of normal force, force that is perpendicular to the flat surface of the trackpad); and
an output signal in accordance with said magnitude and direction (Fig. 2 shows the trackpad implemented in a laptop, and in order to be functionally in communication with the laptop, the trackpad must output an output signal).
Further, Bushnell teaches that shear force input may be used to control a game, for example, to steer an object to the right in a game or to rotate an image clockwise in an image manipulation application (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Nakayama with the trackpad as disclosed by Bushnell. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that a user could manipulate in-game objects with more granularity as taught by Bushnell. Upon this modification, it also would have been obvious, and necessary for proper functionality, to have the processor calculate the state of in-game objects by referencing control data according to the force sensors in the trackpad of Bushnell.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bushnell teaches wherein the processor calculates the state of the object based on both an amount of change in the magnitude and an amount of change in the direction of the load detected by the load detector (¶ 0055 discloses user fingers not moving appreciably across a trackpad, yet the trackpad capable of steering an object in a game through the measurement of shear force. The shear force comprises both magnitude and direction).
Regarding claim 4, Bushnell teaches wherein the operation-position detector is capable of detecting a plurality of operation positions, each being the operation position (¶ 0036 discloses the trackpad containing a capacitive touch sensor that measures the location of movement of a user’s finger(s)).
Regarding claim 5, Bushnell teaches wherein the load detector is capable of detecting the magnitude and the direction of the load in a direction perpendicular to the operation surface (¶ 0041 discloses gathering force input in a direction that is normal to the surface of the device).
The combination of Nakayama and Bushnell lacks a teaching wherein the load detector detects a magnitude of a load for a direction in which the operation surface is tilted. Specifically, the trackpad of Bushnell is not explicitly disclosed as capable of tilting or deforming under pressure from a finger. Regardless the trackpad of Bushnell is capable of detecting a magnitude and a direction for forces in the X,Y, and Z directions (through shear and normal forces discussed above) and thus, can detect any force, within the load tolerances of the trackpad, in three dimensional space. Further, Bushnell teaches that force sensors can be based on any suitable force sensing technology (¶ 0040). Thus, there is a lack of criticality and an absence of unexpected results regarding whether the trackpad tilts when a user presses it. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have modified the force measurement mechanism in the trackpad of Bushnell to measure force according to how much a surface of the trackpad deforms or tilts upon a user’s press. One could have made this modification and expected the same result in measuring the X,Y, and Z components of a load in three-dimensional space.
Regarding claim 6, Bushnell teaches wherein the load detector is capable of detecting the magnitude and the direction of the load in a clockwise direction and the magnitude and the direction of the load in a counterclockwise direction in a plan view of the operation surface (¶ 0055 discloses using the shear forces measured in order to rotate an image clockwise in an image manipulation application).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama teaches wherein the signal output part includes an electrostatic sensor configured to output a signal in accordance with the operation position of the operation to the operation part (¶ 0057 discloses a capacitive touch screen which necessarily requires an electrostatic sensor to detect changes in electrostatic charge when a finger makes contact); and
Bushnell teaches a strain resistor configured to output a signal in accordance with the magnitude and the direction of the load applied to the operation part (¶ 0040 discloses that shear force sensors may be based on structures that change resistance based on applied force).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama and Bushnell in view of US 2003/0069052 to Higashiyama et al. (hereinafter Higashiyama).
Regarding claims 7-10, Nakayama and Bushnell lack the game machine according to claim 3 wherein:
the object is a player character movable on a ground in the game space;
the player character is a character of a person performing skateboarding or snowboarding; and
based on the operation position detected by the operation-position detector and the amount of change in the magnitude and the direction of the load detected by the load detector, the processor is configured to control:
a jumping motion of the player character;
after the jumping motion of the player character is performed, a floating state of the player character; and
a landing action of the player character.
However, in a related disclosure, Higashiyama discloses a snowboarding game and game device. Specifically, Higashiyama teaches a game wherein:
a snowboarding player character is movable on a ground in the game space (see ¶ 0078); and
a user interface allows controlling a jumping motion of the character (¶ 0078 discloses pressing a button to initiate a jump); a floating state of the character (¶ 0079 discloses controlling the character to grab a snowboard midair); and a landing action of the character (¶ 0078 discloses adjusting the angle of the board when landing with the left joystick).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Nakayama and Bushnell to be compatible with the game of Higashiyama. One would have been motivated to make this modification, so that the combination of Nakayama and Bushnell would have compatibility with a larger game library, so that more players would be incentivized to buy the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For instance, US 20130038532 to Okura et al. teaches a computer input device that has a sensor capable of detecting the tilt of a casing and uses capacitive or pressure-sensitive touch inputs. Additionally, US 20170017331 to Huang et al. teaches a controller having a variety of sensors, such as a location sensor, pressure sensor, contact sensor, and capacitive sensor, among other sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights