-20DETAILED 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 1 has been amended as per Applicant’s amendment file on March 9, 2026. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12197654, in view of Bushnell (US 2020/0233495 A1, Published July 23, 2020), Pajic (US 2012/0084123 A1, Published April 5, 2012), and Rosenfeld (US 2010/0242274 A1, Published September 30, 2010).
Present Application
US Patent 12197654
1. A computer input system, comprising:
a mouse, comprising:
a housing having a central axis oriented normal to a lower housing surface;
a sensor assembly disposed within the housing; and
an array of lights disposed within the internal volume of the housing and positioned about the central axis, each light of the light array being separately illuminable
a haptic feedback actuator disposed within the housing;
a processor electrically coupled to the sensor assembly and the haptic feedback actuator; and
a memory component electrically coupled to the processor, the memory component storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
detect, using the sensor assembly, a rotational input to rotate the housing about the central axis; and
transmit a signal to the haptic feedback actuator to cause the haptic feedback actuator to generate haptic feedback based on the rotational input.
1. A computer input system, comprising:
a mouse, comprising:
a housing including an exterior surface and an interior surface defining an internal volume; and
a sensor assembly disposed in the internal volume;
a light; and
a processor electrically coupled to the sensor assembly and a memory component,
the memory component having electronic instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to
determine one of a plurality of different orientations of the mouse relative to a hand based on an input from the hand detected by the sensor assembly and to illuminate the light to indicate a current orientation of the plurality of different orientations.
8. The computer input system of claim 7, wherein an illuminated light of the light array is configured to shift based on the rotational input.
9. The computer input system of claim 8, wherein in response to the rotational input, the illuminated light appears to remain positionally fixed with respect to a user.
2. The computer input system of claim 1, wherein the haptic feedback actuator comprises a linear resonant actuator or an eccentric rotating mass motor.
3. The computer input system of claim 1, wherein the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate an audible sound as the rotational input is performed.
4. The computer input system of claim 1, wherein the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate a vibrational output as the rotational input is performed.
5. The computer input system of claim 1, wherein based on the rotational input, the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate at least one of an audible sound or a vibrational output at predetermined increments of angular displacement for the housing relative to the central axis.
6. The computer input system of claim 1, wherein based on the rotational input, the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate at least one of an audible sound or a vibrational output based on a speed of angular displacement for the housing relative to the central axis.
7. The computer input system of claim 1, further comprising a light array coupled to the housing and positioned about the central axis, each light of the light array being separably illuminable.
8. The computer input system of claim 7, wherein an illuminated light of the light array is configured to shift based on the rotational input.
9. The computer input system of claim 8, wherein in response to the rotational input, the illuminated light appears to remain positionally fixed with respect to a user.
10. A computer input system, comprising: a mouse comprising: a touch-sensitive housing; and a haptic component coupled to the touch-sensitive housing; a processor electrically coupled to the sensor and the haptic component; and a memory component electrically coupled to the processor, the memory component storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: identify a user grip on the touch-sensitive housing; infer a user intent to use the mouse as a twist-dial based on the user grip; detect angular displacement of the touch-sensitive housing; and transmit, to the haptic component, a haptic signal responsive to the angular displacement.
11. The computer input system of claim 10, wherein inferring the user intent comprises identifying a hand orientation from the user grip and associating an intended action with the hand orientation.
12. The computer input system of claim 10, wherein the mouse comprises a component configured to generate a signal output, the component comprising at least one of an electrical element, a magnetic element, or an ultrasonic element.
13. The computer input system of claim 12, further comprising an external computing device electrically coupled to the mouse, wherein the external computing device comprises a sensor configured to sense the signal output from the dumb component.
14. The computer input system of claim 13, wherein: application of the user grip to the housing causes a modification to the signal output; and the sensor is configured to identify the modification to the signal output as indicative of the user grip.
15. The computer input system of claim 10, wherein the user grip is associated with a grip profile for a particular user.
16. The computer input system of claim 10, wherein the grip profile is learned over time and repeat usage via an artificial intelligence algorithm based on at least one of unique hand positions, contact region sizes, degrees of force applied to the touch-sensitive housing, or a weight upon the touch-sensitive housing.
17. The computer input system of claim 10, wherein the touch-sensitive housing comprises a touch sensor array to identify the user grip.
18. A computer input system, comprising: a mouse comprising: a housing; a component disposed within the housing and configured to generate a signal output, the component comprising at least one of an electrical element, a magnetic element, or an ultrasonic element; and a haptic component coupled to the housing; an external computing device electrically coupled to the mouse, the external computing device comprising: a processor electrically coupled to the haptic component; and a memory component electrically coupled to the processor, the memory component storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: detect a modification to the signal output; identify a user grip applied to the housing is a knob grip based on the modification to the signal output; detect angular displacement of the housing about a central axis of the housing; and transmit, to the haptic component, a haptic signal responsive to the angular displacement.
19. The computer input system of claim 18, wherein the haptic component is configured to generate a haptic click effect as the angular displacement occurs.
20. The computer input system of claim 19, wherein the haptic click effect can have a user-configurable resolution.
2. The computer input system of claim 1, wherein: the sensor assembly comprises a first touch sensor disposed on the interior surface and a second touch sensor disposed on the interior surface; the input from the hand includes a plurality of touch inputs corresponding to contact locations between the exterior surface and the hand; the electronic instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine a hand position of the hand relative to the mouse; and the orientation of the mouse is determined based on the hand position.
3. The computer input system of claim 2, wherein the first touch sensor comprises a capacitive sensor element.
4. The computer input system of claim 2, wherein: the housing defines an external surface of the mouse; the input from the hand includes a first touch input and a second touch input; the first touch sensor is configured to detect the first touch input at a first location on the exterior surface; and the second touch sensor is configured to detect the second touch input at a second location on the exterior surface.
5. The computer input system of claim 4, wherein the orientation of the mouse is determined based on relative positions of the first location and the second location.
6. The computer input system of claim 4, wherein: the processor is configured to send a first function signal based on a first input gesture detected by the first touch sensor; and the processor is configured to send a second function signal based on a second input gesture detected by the second touch sensor.
7. The computer input system of claim 4, wherein the orientation includes a user-facing direction that varies depending on relative positions of the first location and the second location.
8. The computer input system of claim 1, further comprising a lower surface configured to face a support surface, wherein the housing includes a circular cross-sectional shape in a plane parallel to the lower surface.
10. An electronic input device, comprising: a housing including an interior surface defining an internal volume, the housing having an at least partially upward-facing surface being at least semi-transparent; a touch sensor array disposed in the internal volume; a motion sensor configured to sense a movement of the housing on a support surface; and a light disposed in the internal volume and illuminatable to direct light through the at least partially upward-facing surface of the housing responsive to an input detected by the touch sensor array, wherein the light is configured to indicate, dependent on the input, multiple different forward directions for the housing.
11. The electronic input device of claim 10, wherein the touch sensor array is configured to detect multiple touch inputs contacting the housing.
12. The electronic input device of claim 11, wherein the light is configured to direct light through the housing in response to determining an orientation of the electronic input device based on at least two of the multiple touch inputs.
13. The electronic input device of claim 10, wherein the touch sensor array comprises multiple capacitive sensors arranged circularly.
14. The electronic input device of claim 13, wherein the multiple capacitive sensors are disposed against the interior surface.
15. The electronic input device of claim 13, wherein the light is a first light of a circular light array disposed concentrically with the touch sensor array.
16. A circular user input device, comprising: a housing defining a major plane and having a circular cross-section in the major plane centered on a central axis normal to the major plane, the housing having an internal surface defining an internal volume; a capacitive sensor array including a set of sensing elements disposed in the internal volume and circularly arranged and concentric with the central axis; and a light array disposed in the internal volume, the light array including a set of lights circularly arranged and concentric with the central axis, wherein each light of the set of lights is separately illuminable on different sides of the central axis.
17. The circular user input device of claim 16, wherein the set of sensing elements are disposed against the internal surface.
18. The circular user input device of claim 16, the housing comprising: an upper curved surface; and a lower surface parallel to the major plane and configured to rest on a support surface.
19. The circular user input device of claim 16, further comprising a motion sensor configured to detect a movement of the housing on a support surface.
20. The circular user input device of claim 16, further comprising a communications interface to connect to an external computing device.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because scope of claim 1 of the present application overlaps and encompasses the scope of claim 1 of US Patent 12197654, and vice-versa, with the exception that claim 1 of US Patent 12197654 does not disclose: a haptic feedback actuator disposed within the housing;… detect, using the sensor assembly, a rotational input to rotate the housing about the central axis; and transmit a signal to the haptic feedback actuator to cause the haptic feedback actuator to generate haptic feedback based on the rotational input.
However, Bushnell does disclose a haptic feedback actuator disposed within the housing (Bushnell at Fig. 2, haptic engine 200; ¶ [0072]);1…
detect, using the sensor assembly, a rotational input to rotate the housing about the central axis (Bushnell at Figs. 1, 4, optical encoder 402; ¶ [0072]-[0073]); and
transmit a signal to the haptic feedback actuator to cause the haptic feedback actuator to generate haptic feedback based on the rotational input (Bushnell at Figs. 2, 4, input device 106; ¶ [0072] discloses “Additionally, in some embodiments the haptic engine 200 provides a haptic output based on a rotational input action. The optical encoder 402 may produce an input device signal when the input device 106 is rotated. The processing unit may receive or be responsive to the input device signal and, in turn, cause a haptic output signal to be transmitted to the haptic engine 200. The haptic output signal may cause the haptic engine 200 to produce a haptic output that can be perceived by a user as haptic feedback indicating the rotational input action has been received by the electronic device.”).
US Patent 12197654 discloses a base electronic device with input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Bushnell discloses a comparable electronic device with input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to US Patent 12197654 the teachings of Bushnell for the predictable result of providing haptic feedback indicating receipt of a rotational input action (Bushnell at ¶ [0076]).
The combination of US Patent 12197654 and Bushnell does not disclose an array of lights coupled to the housing and positioned about the central axis, each light of the array of lights being separately illuminable.
However, Pajic does disclose an array of lights coupled to the housing and positioned about the central axis, each light of the array of lights being separately illuminable (Pajic at Fig. 5, display skin 504; ¶ [0069]-[0070] discloses “For example, a display skin 504 may include a LCD, OLED, E-Ink or other screen or display. It is contemplated that an array of LEDs or other light emitters may also form the display skin 504…. It is contemplated that the display technology used may one that may be formed to conform to the shape of the mouse. For example, an OLED, EINK, or array of LEDs may be used to form a display skin 504 with one or more curves, angles or the like that conform to the shape of the mouse.”).
The combination of US Patent 12197654 and Bushnell discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Pajic discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of US Patent 12197654 and Bushnell the teachings of Pajic for the predictable result of providing a mouse usable as a vehicle for distributing advertising or other marketing information (Pajic at ¶ [0006]).
The combination of US Patent 12197654, Bushnell, and Pajic does not disclose that the array of lights disposed within the internal volume of the housing.
However, Rosenfeld does disclose that the array of lights disposed within the internal volume of the housing (Rosenfeld at ¶ [0078] discloses “However, because the computer mouse 1600 may have a smooth, featureless surface that otherwise does not indicate this functionality when it is active, the computer mouse 1600 may comprise one or more light sources that may be illuminated to delineate region 1602.” ¶ [0079] discloses “[0079] Any suitable type of light source may be used to illuminate region 1602. For example, in some embodiments one or more light pipes (i.e. total internal reflection light conductors) may be used to transport light from a light emitting diode or other light emitter within the mouse to the mouse surface at a location above the touch sensor.” MPEP 2144.04(VI) establishes the duplication of parts is obvious)
The combination of US Patent 12197654, Bushnell, and Pajic discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Rosenfeld discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of US Patent 12197654, Bushnell, and Pajic the teachings of Rosenfeld for the predictable result of indicating functionality when active (Rosenfeld at ¶ [0078]).
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, 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genesin (US 2020/0233495 A1, Published February 10, 2011) in view of Bushnell (US 2020/0233495 A1, Published July 23, 2020), Pajic (US 2012/0084123 A1, Published April 5, 2012), and Rosenfeld (US 2010/0242274 A1, Published September 30, 2010).
As to claim 1, Genesin discloses a computer input system, comprising:
a mouse, comprising: a housing having a central axis oriented normal to a lower housing surface (Genesin at Figs. 7-9, mouse control device 8 and axis 26; ¶ [0045]);
a sensor assembly disposed within the housing (Genesin at Figs. 7-10); and…
a processor electrically coupled to the sensor assembly (Genesin at Figs. 7-10)…
a memory component electrically coupled to the processor, the memory component storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Genesin at Fig. 1,10):
detect, using the sensor assembly, a rotational input to rotate the housing about the central axis (Genesin at Figs. 9); and
While Genesin does disclose haptic feedback to the mouse control device 8 (Genesin at ¶ [0045]), Genesin does not expressly disclose a haptic feedback actuator disposed within the housing, and that the processor is electronically coupled to the haptic feedback actuator.
Genesin also does not disclose transmitting a signal to the haptic feedback actuator to cause the haptic feedback actuator to generate haptic feedback based on the rotational input.
However, Bushnell does disclose a haptic feedback actuator disposed within the housing, and that the processor is electronically coupled to the haptic feedback actuator (Bushnell at Fig. 2, haptic engine 200; ¶ [0072].
Bushnell also discloses transmitting a signal to the haptic feedback actuator to cause the haptic feedback actuator to generate haptic feedback based on the rotational input (Bushnell at Figs. 2, 4, input device 106; ¶ [0072] discloses “Additionally, in some embodiments the haptic engine 200 provides a haptic output based on a rotational input action. The optical encoder 402 may produce an input device signal when the input device 106 is rotated. The processing unit may receive or be responsive to the input device signal and, in turn, cause a haptic output signal to be transmitted to the haptic engine 200. The haptic output signal may cause the haptic engine 200 to produce a haptic output that can be perceived by a user as haptic feedback indicating the rotational input action has been received by the electronic device.”).2
Genesin discloses a base electronic device with input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Bushnell discloses a comparable electronic device with input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Genesin the teachings of Bushnell for the predictable result of providing haptic feedback indicating receipt of a rotational input action (Bushnell at ¶ [0076]).
The combination of Genesin and Bushnell does not disclose an array of lights coupled to the housing and positioned about the central axis, each light of the array of lights being separately illuminable.
However, Pajic does disclose an array of lights coupled to the housing and positioned about the central axis, each light of the array of lights being separately illuminable (Pajic at Fig. 5, display skin 504; ¶ [0069]-[0070] discloses “For example, a display skin 504 may include a LCD, OLED, E-Ink or other screen or display. It is contemplated that an array of LEDs or other light emitters may also form the display skin 504…. It is contemplated that the display technology used may one that may be formed to conform to the shape of the mouse. For example, an OLED, EINK, or array of LEDs may be used to form a display skin 504 with one or more curves, angles or the like that conform to the shape of the mouse.”).
The combination of Genesin and Bushnell discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Pajic discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Genesin and Bushnell the teachings of Pajic for the predictable result of providing a mouse usable as a vehicle for distributing advertising or other marketing information (Pajic at ¶ [0006]).
The combination of Genesin, Bushnell, and Pajic does strongly suggests but does not expressly disclose that the array of lights disposed within the internal volume of the housing.
However, Rosenfeld does disclose that the array of lights disposed within the internal volume of the housing (Rosenfeld at ¶ [0078] discloses “However, because the computer mouse 1600 may have a smooth, featureless surface that otherwise does not indicate this functionality when it is active, the computer mouse 1600 may comprise one or more light sources that may be illuminated to delineate region 1602.” ¶ [0079] discloses “[0079] Any suitable type of light source may be used to illuminate region 1602. For example, in some embodiments one or more light pipes (i.e. total internal reflection light conductors) may be used to transport light from a light emitting diode or other light emitter within the mouse to the mouse surface at a location above the touch sensor.” MPEP 2144.04(VI) establishes the duplication of parts is obvious)
The combination of Genesin, Bushnell, and Pajic discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Rosenfeld discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, and Pajic the teachings of Rosenfeld for the predictable result of indicating functionality when active (Rosenfeld at ¶ [0078]).
As to claim 2, the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld discloses the computer input system of claim 1, wherein the haptic feedback actuator comprises a linear resonant actuator or an eccentric rotating mass motor (Bushnell at Fig. 3; ¶ [0050], in particular).
Genesin discloses a base electronic device with input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Bushnell discloses a comparable electronic device with input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Genesin the teachings of Bushnell for the predictable result of providing haptic feedback indicating receipt of a rotational input action (Bushnell at ¶ [0076]).
As to claim 4, the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld discloses the computer input system of claim 1, wherein the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate a vibrational output as the rotational input is performed (Bushnell at ¶ [0044], [0047], in particular).
Genesin discloses a base electronic device with input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Bushnell discloses a comparable electronic device with input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Genesin the teachings of Bushnell for the predictable result of providing haptic feedback indicating receipt of a rotational input action (Bushnell at ¶ [0076]).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Burroughs (US 2010/0156818 A1, Published June 24, 2010).
As to claim 3, the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, and Pajic discloses the computer input system of claim 1.
The combination does not expressly disclose that the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate an audible sound as the rotational input is performed.
However, Burroughs does disclose that the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate an audible sound as the rotational input is performed (Burroughs at Fig. 1; ¶ [0084] discloses “As a result, when the fingers are rotated, the rotate signal can be used to rotate the virtual scroll wheel in the direction of finger rotation (e.g., clockwise, counterclockwise) at 1310 as well as provide an audible as well as palpable "click" at 1312 using at least two haptic actuators at 1310 to provide a physical sensation at the two fingers concurrently with the audible click simulating the "feel" of the click”).
The combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld discloses a base haptic feedback system upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Burroughs discloses a comparable haptic feedback system which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, and Pajic the teachings of Burroughs for the predictable result of rotary input feedback (Burroughs at ¶ [0017], [0084]).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Anderson (US 2023/0011572 A1, Filed July 8, 2021).
As to claim 5, the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld discloses the computer input system of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose that based on the rotational input, the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate at least one of an audible sound or a vibrational output at predetermined increments of angular displacement for the housing relative to the central axis.
However, Anderson that based on the rotational input, the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate at least one of an audible sound or a vibrational output at predetermined increments of angular displacement for the housing relative to the central axis (Anderson at Figs. 1, 3; ¶ [0011], [0038] discloses “In some examples, the processor 310 may provide direct feedback to a user through one or more output indicator(s) 330. For example, in response to a detected rotation, the processor may trigger a haptic force feedback component to cause the enclosure of the wireless controller to vibrate slightly. A series of such haptic feedback occurring while the user continues to rotate the wireless controller may be perceived by a user as volume knob ‘detents’ that feel similar to other audio equipment having tactile feedback upon turning a knob.”).
The combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld discloses a base haptic input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Anderson discloses a comparable haptic input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld the teachings of Anderson for the predictable result of providing a feedback feel of detents (Anderson at ¶ [0011], [0038]).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Leroy (US 2019/0294248 A1, Published September 26, 2019).
As to claim 6, the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld discloses the computer input system of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose that based on the rotational input, the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate at least one of an audible sound or a vibrational output based on a speed of angular displacement for the housing relative to the central axis.
However, Leroy does disclose that based on the rotational input, the haptic feedback actuator is configured to generate at least one of an audible sound or a vibrational output based on a speed of angular displacement for the housing relative to the central axis (Leroy at ¶ [0002] discloses a “rotary knob.” ¶ [0094] discloses “Further, by modulating the spatial frequency of the vibration, i.e. by modifying the amplitude variation of the vibration as a function of the knob movement, it is possible to modify the feeling felt by the user.”).
The combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld discloses a base haptic feedback device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Leroy discloses a comparable haptic feedback device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Genesin, Bushnell, Pajic, and Rosenfeld the teachings of Leroy for the predictable result of providing improved haptic feedback and having a reduced bulk (Leroy at ¶ [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the Double Patenting rejection above claims 8, 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the objected to claim and all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 8, none of the prior art found by the Examiner discloses the claimed aspects of: wherein an illuminated light of the light array is configured to shift based on the rotational input.
As to claim 9, none of the prior art found by the Examiner discloses the claimed aspects of: wherein in response to the rotational input, the illuminated light appears to remain positionally fixed with respect to a user.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 10-20 are allowable for the reasons provided in Applicant’s Remarks filed on October 15, 2025 at pages 13-14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilson (US 2009/0317436 A1, Published December 24, 2009) is made of record for its relevance to claim 1 by its disclosure of the following at Fig. 4 and ¶ [0035]:
“[0035] discloses “[0035] FIG. 4 shows a computer mouse in accordance with the invention. The plastic used to make the mouse is preferably transparent or partially transparent. An internal light source 18 is provided which illuminates the surface of the mouse that comes into contact with the user's hands to activate the photosensitizer polymer thereon.”
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 Sanjiv D Patel whose telephone number is (571)270-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Sanjiv D. Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
03/19/2026
1 See also Genesin at Figs. 7-9; ¶ [0045].
2 See also Anderson at Fig. 3