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 .
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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,0561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,056 anticipate claims 1-16 of the current application. Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,056 disclose all limitations of claims 1-16 of the current application and additionally disclose performing thermoelectric operations using current application modes in which current directions are difference from each other. Since the subject matter of claims 1-16 of the current application is a subset of the subject matter disclosed in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,056, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,056 anticipate claims 1-16 of the current application.
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, 5, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikhailov, US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/02588002.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Mikhailov discloses device for providing a thermal feedback, the device comprising:
a memory [memory 62 in Figure 5 and paragraph 0073] configured to store thermal feedback data including type and intensity fields, wherein the type field indicates a type of the thermal feedback [hot or cold feedback is provided based on different virtual events occurring, paragraphs 0093, 0108 and 0109], and the intensity field indicates the intensity of the feedback [the level of heating or cooling is based on virtual events occurring, paragraphs 0100, 0101 and 0106]; and
a controller electrically connected to the memory [processor 60 in Figure 5 and paragraph 0073];
the controller configured to:
monitor whether a thermal event is occurred [an interactive application determines whether thermal feedback is required based on movement to certain positions or near certain objects in virtual space, paragraphs 0089 and 0092-0093],
obtain thermal feedback information corresponding to the occurred thermal event [thermal trigger data is generated corresponding to the virtual space movement, paragraphs 0089 and 0092-0093],
wherein the thermal feedback information includes a type of a thermal feedback corresponding to the thermal event and an intensity of a thermal feedback corresponding to the thermal event [the thermal trigger data includes various states (activation levels) of heating, cooling, and thermal grill effects, paragraphs 0089 and 0091],
generate a thermal feedback message comprising a type field and an intensity field [thermal trigger data indicating parameters for thermal feedback (heating or cooling and intensity levels of heating or cooling) is generated based on virtual events, paragraph 0089], wherein the type field reflects the type of the thermal feedback [hot or cold feedback is provided based on different virtual events occurring, paragraphs 0093, 0108 and 0109], and the intensity field reflects the intensity of the thermal feedback [the level of heating or cooling is based on virtual events occurring, paragraphs 0100, 0101 and 0106]; and
transmit the thermal feedback message to a feedback device [thermal trigger data is transmitted from the interactive application to a temperature effects module in the controller, paragraph 0089],
wherein the feedback device includes a thermoelectric element configured to perform an exothermic operation, an endothermic operation or a combination thereof based on the thermal feedback message [thermal feedback is provided to the user via a controller handle thermal module that includes a heat source and a cold source, paragraphs 0062-0063 and 0089-0090].
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Mikhailov further discloses that the thermal feedback information further includes a movement of a thermal feedback, wherein the movement of the thermal feedback is determined based on a movement of a heat source relative to the virtual character in the game content, wherein the thermal feedback message further comprises a third field reflecting the movement of the thermal feedback, and wherein the first thermoelectric couple group and the second thermoelectric couple group are controlled according to the third field of the thermal feedback message so that the user can feel a heat movement according to the movement of the heat source relative to the virtual character in the game content [by having independent control of the regions’ temperatures it is possible to achieve precise temperature gradients, paragraphs 0082, 0101 and 0106].
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikhailov, US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0258800 in view of Musick, JR. et al., US Patent Patent Application Publication no. 2014/0342830 [Musick].
Regarding claims 2-4 and 10-12, Mikhailov, as described above, discloses a one-handed game controller that includes a plurality of heating and cooling regions that may be individually controlled to produce heating or cooling (exothermic and endothermic) effects and different intensity levels. Mikhailov further discloses a multiplayer configuration in which a first one-handed game controller with thermal feedback is held in a user’s left hand and a second, physically separate, one-handed game controller is held in a user’s right hand [Figure 15 and paragraphs 0101-0103]. Mikhailov does not disclose that a single user holds the first one-handed game controller in their left hand and holds the second one-handed game controller in their right hand. Like Mikhailov, Musick discloses a video game system that includes multiple game controller. Specifically, Musick discloses a game configuration where a single user holds physically separate game controllers in each hand while playing the video game [Figures 3A and 3B and paragraphs 0068-0071]. Since multiple game controller video game configurations where a single user holds a first one-handed game controller in their left hand and holds a second one-handed game controller in their right hand were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Mikhailov thermal feedback teachings to the known game systems where a single user holds a physically separate game controller in each hand, in order to improve the user experience by providing thermal feedback to the user through the controllers [Mikhailov, paragraph 0089].
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikhailov, US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0258800, in view of Levesque et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2015/0070154 [Levesque]3.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Mikhailov does not disclose providing thermal feedback start time and end time data in the thermal trigger data. Like Mikhailov, Levesque discloses a haptic feedback system in which haptic feedback commands are transmitted to haptic feedback devices. Specifically, Levesque discloses that the thermal feedback commands may include haptic feedback start times and end times [paragraph 0040]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide haptic feedback start time and end time parameters in haptic feedback commands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide thermal feedback start time and end time parameters in the Mikhailov thermal trigger data in order to provide for more accurate thermal feedback.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 15 and 16, Mikhailov further discloses that the thermal feedback may include thermal grill feedback [paragraph 0101], but does not disclose substituting different feedback on devices that do not include thermal grill functionality. Like Mikhailov, Levesque discloses a haptic feedback system. Levesque recognizes that haptic control commands from a media device may be incompatible with haptic feedback devices [paragraphs 0004-0005]. To solve this problem, Levesque discloses converting haptic commands that are incompatible with a particular haptic feedback device to haptic commands that are compatible with the haptic feedback device [paragraphs 0027 and 0029]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date to convert incompatible haptic feedback commands to compatible haptic feedback commands for haptic feedback devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Levesque teachings to the Mikhailov system in order to improve haptic feedback system performance [Levesque, paragraphs 0004-0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 September 25, 2026
1 US Patent no. 11,747,056 was cited in the 12/6/24 IDS.
2 Mikhailov was cited in the 12/6/24 IDS.
3 Levesque was cited in the 12/6/24 IDS.
