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 2/13/2026.
Claims 12-31 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 1/17/2025 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiggemans et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2017/0206054 A1) in view of Forstall et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2011/0294552 A1).
Regarding Claims 12, 22 & 28: Wiggemans discloses an information processing system, (Abstract) comprising: a manipulation device, (Fig. 1, 104); and a notification unit comprising a plurality of types of feedback systems, (¶¶ 45, 46), wherein the manipulation device is configured to store a plurality of pieces of setting information associated with a manipulation of the manipulation device, (¶ 54), the plurality of pieces of setting information being selectable by a user, (¶ 54). Wiggemans discloses in response to a switching of the setting information to be applied to the manipulation of the manipulation device, the notification unit is configured to present to the user a notification of the switching of the setting information. (¶¶ 45, 46, 54).
Wiggemans discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit that there are a plurality of feedback systems. However, in a related invention, Forstall teaches switching user profiles and notifying a user of profile change using a plurality of feedback systems including audio, video and tactile, Forstall, e.g., ¶¶ 8-10, 87.) 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 Forstall’s profile switching and notification system in Wiggemans’ system for several reasons including providing a convenient and easy mechanism for switching user profiles (Forstall e.g., ¶¶ 6-7.)
Regarding Claims 13-21, 25 & 29-31: See Wiggemans in view of Forstall, (Forstall ¶ 87).
Regarding Claims 23, 24: See Wiggemans in view of Forstall, (Forstall ¶¶ 12, 35, 48).
Regarding Claim 26: See Wiggemans ¶¶ 6, 8, 10.
Regarding Claim 27: See Wiggemans ¶¶ 21, 27, 32.
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