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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 and 8/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 3-5, 8, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 12 each recite “an ordinary event”, which is a subjective term. The specification does not provide some objective standard for measuring the scope of this term. Since the claim term “an ordinary event” requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction, claims 3 and 12 are indefinite.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims 3 and 12.
Claims 5 and 14 each recite the limitations "the stopping vibration instruction data" and “the stopping vibration data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 8 recites “each frequency” at lines 3-4 and line 5. It is not clear what each frequency is referring to since claim 1 only recites one intended frequency. Therefore, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 8 further recites “a frequency indicated in the impact vibration instruction data” and “an amplitude based on an amplitude parameter indicated in the impact vibration instruction data”. It is not clear if these are referring to the intended frequency and the amplitude of claim 1 or if these are referring to a different frequency and amplitude. Therefore, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 17 similarly recites “each frequency” at lines 9 and 10. It is not clear what each frequency is referring to since claims 10 and 17 only recite one intended frequency. Therefore, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 17 further recites “a frequency indicated in the vibration instruction data” at line 6 and “an amplitude with an amplitude indicated in the vibration instruction data”. It is not clear if these are referring to the intended frequency and the amplitude of claim 10 or if these are referring to a different frequency and amplitude. Therefore, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the claim is.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-11, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow et al. (US 2022/0395861) in view of Takeda et al. (WO 2015/098062).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Snow teaches: A vibration control system in a game system comprising a vibration motor, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, and a method [A system 500 having a controller, such as a microprocessor, for one or more vibration devices, such as devices mounted in a game controller, and an actuator, such as a motor, and a control method (par. 358, 385-386, 389-390, and 402, Fig. 29A-29B and 31)], the vibration control system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories storing program code that, when executed, causes the vibration control system to perform operations [a controller 502 may be a microprocessor for controlling vibration actuators (par. 389-390, Fig. 31)] comprising:
determining whether an impact event has occurred [an impact in a game, such as impact or recoil of a gun in the game, or an impact in a driving game (par. 446)],
generating vibration instruction data for vibration of the vibration motor based on a determination of occurrence of the impact event, the vibration instruction data (impact vibration instruction data) designating an intended frequency, an amplitude corresponding to a maximum input voltage to the vibration motor or a maximum output voltage from an amplifier that controls the vibration motor, and a period [providing haptic effects through the actuators to provide a vibration effect in the game as feedback to the impact of the gun or driving game impact (par. 446). The controller 502 specifies the desired vibration amplitude, A, frequency, f, and phase, p, for each actuator 506. The amplitude in accordance with a voltage peak magnitude. The actuator may be controlled for a given duration of time long enough for a person to sense the effect (par. 391, 448, 495, and 497-498, Fig. 1 and 32)], and
controlling the vibration motor based on the impact vibration instruction data [controlling the actuator to vibrate according to the commanded parameters (par. 391, 448, 495, and 497-498, Fig. 1 and 32)].
Snow does not explicitly disclose: the period is not longer than two wavelengths of the frequency.
Takeda teaches: the period is not longer than two wavelengths of the frequency [The drive signal for generating the vibration that constitutes the desired tactile sensation is one period, that is, one wavelength (page 6-7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Snow and Takeda before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibration control system of Snow by incorporating the teaching of Takeda, such that the period is not longer than two wavelengths of the frequency. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a vibration that is a good tactile sensation, while ensuring the contrast between the part where the tactile sensation is presented and the part where the tactile sensation is not presented is clear (Takeda – page 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Snow and Takeda to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Snow and Takeda teach the vibration control system of claim 1; Snow and Takeda further teach: the impact vibration instruction data is data that designates a period not longer than one wavelength of the frequency [Snow – controlling the vibration including a duration (par. 391, 448, 495, and 497-498, Fig. 1 and 32). Takeda – the period is one wavelength (page 6-7)].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Snow and Takeda teach the vibration control system of claim 1; Snow and Takeda further teach: the impact vibration instruction data is data designating a period as long as two wavelengths and not longer than 50 msec [Snow – 50 ms (par. 743 and 933). Takeda - one wavelength (page 6-7)].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Snow and Takeda teach the vibration control system of claim 1; Snow further teaches: the operations further comprise detecting a predetermined object colliding in proceeding of a game as the determination of occurrence of the impact event [determining a car impacting with an object in a driving game, causing a frontal or side impact (par. 446)].
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow et al. (US 2022/0395861) in view of Takeda et al. (WO 2015/098062) and further in view of Aoki et al. (US 2018/0028910).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Snow and Takeda teach the vibration control system of claim 1; Snow and Takeda do not explicitly disclose: the operations further comprise: determining whether an ordinary event has occurred, generating vibration instruction data for vibration of the vibration motor based on a determination of occurrence of the ordinary event, the vibration instruction data (ordinary vibration instruction data) designating an intended frequency, an intended amplitude, and a period exceeding two wavelengths of the frequency, and controlling the vibration motor based on the generated ordinary vibration instruction data.
Aoki teaches: the operations further comprise: determining whether an ordinary event has occurred, generating vibration instruction data for vibration of the vibration motor based on a determination of occurrence of the ordinary event, the vibration instruction data (ordinary vibration instruction data) designating an intended frequency, an intended amplitude, and a period exceeding two wavelengths of the frequency, and controlling the vibration motor based on the generated ordinary vibration instruction data [determining ordinary events in the game, such as a user travels on a motor bicycle and generating a weak and continual vibration pattern in the game (par. 231-232 249, and 254, Fig. 1, 4-5, and 19)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Snow, Takeda, and Aoki before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibration control system of Snow and Takeda by incorporating the teaching of Aoki, such that when an ordinary event is determined the vibration data is generated with a longer period of over two wavelengths. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide different vibration effects for different types of events in the game, such as a weak and continual vibration when a character rides a motorcycle and a strong and short vibration when a motorcycle collides into an object (Aoki – par. 232). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Snow and Takeda with Aoki to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Snow, Takeda, and Aoki teach the vibration control system of claim 3; Snow further teaches: operations further comprise: generating vibration instruction data that stops vibration of the vibration motor (stopping vibration instruction data) based on a determination of neither impact vibration instruction data or ordinary vibration instruction data, and controlling the vibration motor based on the stopping vibration instruction data after vibration control based on the impact vibration instruction data or the ordinary vibration instruction data [stopping the actuators once the need for vibration is no longer imminent, such as determining no user input for an amount of time or the vibration effects are no longer needed (par. 581)].
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow et al. (US 2022/0395861) in view of Takeda et al. (WO 2015/098062) and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 2016/0310844).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Snow and Takeda teach the vibration control system of claim 1; Snow and Takeda do not explicitly disclose: the stopping vibration instruction data is generated as the stopping vibration data indicating gradual decrease in amplitude from a value at a previous amplitude.
Yamashita teaches: the stopping vibration instruction data is generated as the stopping vibration data indicating gradual decrease in amplitude from a value at a previous amplitude [gradually decreasing the amplitude of vibration in response to an amplitude update command (par. 110)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Snow, Takeda, and Yamashita before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibration control system of Snow and Takeda by incorporating the teaching of Yamashita, such that the stopping vibration data indicates gradual decrease in amplitude. This would have achieved the predictable result of smoothly ending the vibration instead of ending the vibration suddenly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Snow and Takeda with Yamashita to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Snow and Takeda teach the vibration control system of claim 1; Snow and Takeda do not explicitly disclose: the operations further comprise: interpolating between the impact vibration instruction data, and determining that a previous amplitude is zero or previous control data is zero, and the interpolating is activated or not activated based on the determination.
Yamashita teaches: the operations further comprise: interpolating between the impact vibration instruction data, and determining that a previous amplitude is zero or previous control data is zero, and the interpolating is activated or not activated based on the determination [the amplitude value of the vibration and the frequency of the vibration may be gradually commanded to increase or decrease in response to an amplitude update command based on determining the value of amplitude immediately before the update (par. 110)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Snow, Takeda, and Yamashita before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibration control system of Snow and Takeda by incorporating the teaching of Yamashita, such that interpolating occurs based on a previous amplitude value, such as zero. This would have achieved the predictable result of smoothly starting or ending the vibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Snow and Takeda with Yamashita to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights