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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claim amendments filed 3/2/2026,
Claims 13-32 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 1/14/2025 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25 & 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffer et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2021/0379487 A1) in view of Koziel (U.S. Pub. No.: 2020/0298110 A1).
Regarding Claims 13, 21, 29 & 31: Huffer discloses an information processing system (Abstract) comprising an information processing device (Fig. 3), configured to execute an application, (¶ 10); and a manipulation device, (Fig. 2A), wherein the manipulation device comprises: a first button; at least one second button different from the first button, (¶29); a memory that stores setting information associated with a manipulation of the manipulation device, (Fig. 4, 226, ¶¶ 39, 40).
Huffer discloses one or more processors, (¶ 39) configured to: generate, in reference to the setting information, manipulation information indicating a manipulation performed by a user, (e.g., Fig. 3, 190, 192, ¶ 36), a simultaneous input of a manipulation of the at least one second button and a manipulation of the first button, (¶¶ 42-44). wherein the information processing device is configured to receive the manipulation information from the manipulation device and execute the application in reference to the manipulation information, (¶¶ 42-44).
Huffer discloses the invention substantially but does not appear to make explicit that in response to the simultaneous input of both buttons, the system switches setting information to be applied to a subsequent manipulation of the manipulation device. However, in a related controller configuration system, Koziel teaches a remapping device and GUI that switches different profiles based on user preferences, (Koziel, e.g., ¶¶ 7, 42, 69, 112).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Koziel’s electronic remapping functionality in Huffer’s system for the purpose of quickly and efficiently transitioning between several users’ preferences thereby providing highly customizable inputs.
Regarding Claims 14, 22: See Huffer in view of Koziel, (e.g., Koziel, Fig. 1 and related description.)
Regarding Claims 16, 17, 24, 25, 30: See e.g., Huffer ¶¶ 42-44.
Claims 18, 20, 26, 28 & 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffer et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2021/0379487 A1) and Koziel (U.S. Pub. No.: 2020/0298110 A1) as applied to Claims 13, 16, 21 & 31 in view of Strahle (U.S. Patent No.: 10,143,921 B1).
Huffer and Koziel fail to show, executing a change process associated with sound output, in response to input of a manipulation of the button configured for manipulating the application together with the manipulation of the first button. However, in a related invention, Strahle shows simultaneously pressing 2 buttons to adjust game application volume, (Strahle Col. 8. Lines 1-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Strahle’s method of changing game audio in the system of Huffer and Koziel for several reasons including ensuring a user intended to invoke a change, i.e., requiring 2 simultaneous buttons to be pressed prior to making a change reduces the likelihood of an inadvertent change.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 19, 23 & 27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search of the prior art yielded references to Huffer in view of Koziel. However, these references fail to disclose, suggest or render obvious, in combination with the other claimed limitations:
Per Claims 15 & 23: wherein the at least one the memory is configured to store a plurality of pieces of the setting information with each piece of the setting information being associated with a corresponding second button of the plurality of second buttons, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to switch the setting information to be applied to subsequent manipulation of the manipulation device to setting information associated with a specific second button.
Per Claims 19 & 27: execute, in response to a simultaneous input of a manipulation of the direction key and the manipulation of the first button, a change process associated with a setting item having a successively changing value.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, generally 9am-5:30 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, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571-272-7147. 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights