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 Objections
Claims 31–34, 36, 39, 40, 42 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Each of claims 29, 37 and 41 is directed to at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by at least one control circuit, cause the at least one control circuit to perform recited functions. Claims 31–34, 36, 39, 40, 42 and 43 then refer to "the control circuit," and claims 31 and 32 further recite that "the control circuit is further configured to" perform functions, rather than that the instructions are configured to cause the at least one control circuit to perform them.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is invited to amend:
"the control circuit" → "the at least one control circuit" throughout claims 31–34, 36, 39, 40, 42 and 43; and
"wherein the control circuit is further configured to" → "wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one control circuit to" in claims 31 and 32.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in 35 U.S.C. 101 which forbids an individual from obtaining more than one patent on the same invention, and prevents the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); MPEP §804.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) 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 instant application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Claims 2–58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,758.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are directed to the same transmission-frequency-reduction scheme for a rotary remote control device as the patented claims, differing only in the omission or generalization of limitations recited in the patented claims. A claim that omits a limitation of a patented claim, or that recites the same subject matter at a broader level of generality, is an obvious variant of that patented claim. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The instant application is a voluntary continuation of Application No. 18/238,190, which issued as the '758 patent. The separation of the claims did not result from any requirement or action of the Office, and so the two-way test is not available to applicant. MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant claim
'758 claim
Limitation
2
1, 2, 3
Periodic transmission at a transmission frequency dependent on "a transmission interval … a period of time between the periodic transmissions of the command messages," and decreasing that frequency in response to continued user interaction (cl. 1); the usage timer and usage threshold by which the continued interaction is detected (cl. 2); the second usage threshold on which the decrease is based (cl. 3)
3, 4, 18
1
User interface comprising a rotation portion; command messages transmitted while the rotation portion is being rotated
5, 19
2
"[S]tart a usage timer in response to receiving the indication of the rotation of the rotation portion; detect the continued user interaction, wherein the continued user interaction is detected in response to the usage timer exceeding a usage threshold"
6
3
Excessive usage when the usage timer exceeds a second usage threshold, and decreasing the transmission frequency on that determination
7
4
"[D]etermine that there is excessive usage of the rotation portion when an angular velocity of the rotation portion exceeds an angular velocity threshold and the usage timer exceeds the usage threshold"
8
5
Change in angular position exceeding an angular position change threshold, together with the usage timer exceeding the usage threshold
9
6
A desired amount of change in a lighting level determined from the angular position change, and a lighting level change threshold
11
8
Increasing the transmission frequency to an initial value after a timeout period from the detection that the continued user interaction has stopped
12
1
Detecting when the continued user interaction has stopped, determining a final lighting level, and transmitting a final command message including a command for adjusting to the final lighting level
13, 21
1
The controlled load being a lighting load and the values being lighting levels
14
1
"[E]ach of the command messages comprising a respective command for adjusting to a respective lighting level and a fade period … wherein the fade period indicates an amount of time over which to transition to the respective lighting level, and wherein the fade period is longer than the transmission interval"
15
7
The respective lighting level "determined in response to an amount of change in an angular position of the rotation portion during the continued user interaction"
16
9
"[D]ecrease the transmission frequency to zero hertz, such that the processor stops periodically transmitting the command messages"
17, 20, 22
1
Decreasing the transmission frequency of the periodic transmission in response to continued user interaction
23, 24, 27, 28
1
Rotation portion; a command for adjusting to a respective lighting level and a fade period, transmitted while the rotation portion is being rotated
26
1
The fade period being longer than the transmission interval
29–43
20
Computer readable medium having instructions configured to cause a control circuit to perform the same operations
44–58
11–19
Method claims reciting the same steps
Claims 2, 29 and 44 recite that the second value is "determined based on the first value of the first command messages." The '758 patent claims transmission of "a respective command for adjusting to a respective lighting level" during continued rotation (cl. 1), each successive command adjusting to a further level; determining the later value from the earlier is an obvious variant of that arrangement.
Claims 23, 41 and 56 recite determining an updated lighting level "based on a current level of the lighting load and the determined change in the lighting level." The '758 claims recite transmitting a command for adjusting to a respective lighting level and, at the end of the interaction, determining a final lighting level "based on a final position of the rotation portion" (cl. 1). Determining the transmitted level from the current level together with the rotation-derived change is an obvious variant.
Claims 13, 21, 35 and 50 generalize the controlled load from the lighting load of the '758 claims to "an electrical load," or recite volume, shade and fan levels alongside lighting levels. Broadening the recited load type does not render the claims patentably distinct.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2–5, 8, 10–11, 13, 15, 17–22, 29–35, 37–40, 44–50 and 52–55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bard (US 2018/0014387 A1, hereinafter “Bard”) in view of Chen (US 6,995,682 B1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 2, Bard discloses a device comprising a communication circuit and a control circuit. Bard's input device 600 includes a control circuit 602, a memory 604, an input circuit 606 and a communications circuit 608 for transmitting and receiving information (Bard ¶¶[0087]–[0090]; FIG. 6), and its remote control device 116 transmits digital messages via RF signals 106 (¶[0028]).
Bard discloses periodically transmitting first command messages via the communication circuit, each comprising a respective first value configured to control an electrical load. The remote control device transmits command messages identifying a lighting level to which the lighting devices may change (¶[0028]); on identifying a rotation of a predefined distance or time it sends a message instructing an increase of ten percent, and on identifying a continued rotation sends respective messages instructing a further ten percent increase (¶[0042]). Bard further discloses that the device controls audio and HVAC loads in the same manner (¶[0011]).
Bard discloses that the first transmission frequency is dependent on a first transmission interval comprising a first period of time between the periodic transmissions. Bard's remote transmits successive command messages separated by a period (¶¶[0072]–[0073]), and selects the rate of change or time period of change sent with the command such that the lighting device reaches the target lighting level before or at the same time as receiving the next message (¶[0073]).
Bard does not disclose determining that the first command messages have been transmitted at the first transmission frequency for a threshold period of time, determining a second, lower transmission frequency dependent on a second, greater transmission interval, and periodically transmitting second command messages at that second frequency.
Chen discloses exactly that. In the transmission sequence of FIG. 8c (Chen col. 7, ln. 45–46), irrespective of how long the In button 42 or the Out button 44 is depressed, the transmitter transmits the respective command for about a 45 ms period and then interrupts transmission for about 54 ms, and this sequence repeats for the first 1.5 seconds after the button has been depressed (col. 7, ln. 49–56). After 1.5 seconds, the command is transmitted again for about 45 ms and is then not transmitted for about 154 ms, and this second sequence continues for the remainder of the time in which the button is depressed (col. 7, ln. 56–60). Chen states that the reduced number of transmissions conserves battery power (col. 7, ln. 60–61).
Chen thus discloses transmitting command messages at a first repetition rate; determining that they have been so transmitted for a threshold period of time (1.5 seconds); and thereafter transmitting further command messages at a second repetition rate lower than the first, the period between transmissions having increased, while the user's actuation of the user interface continues.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bard's remote control device to change from a first transmission frequency to a lower second transmission frequency after the first command messages have been transmitted at the first frequency for a threshold period of time, as taught by Chen, and to continue transmitting command messages at that second frequency while the user interaction continues.
The reason is supplied by both references. Chen teaches that reducing the number of transmissions during sustained actuation conserves the battery of a hand-held transmitter (Chen col. 7, ln. 60–61). Bard independently identifies excessive message transmission as a problem in its own system, teaching that the number of messages within a defined period is limited and that exceeding the limit causes the lighting devices to lock up and prevent control for a period of time (Bard ¶[0004]; see also ¶¶[0040]–[0041]). A person of ordinary skill applying Chen's sustained-actuation throttling technique to Bard's remote would thus have had two concrete reasons to do so; conserving the battery of a battery-powered remote and reducing message traffic during prolonged rotation; and the result would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); MPEP §2143(I)(C).
Bard further discloses that the second value is determined based on the first value of the first command messages. In Bard, each successive command during continued rotation instructs a further change from the level established by the preceding command; a first message instructing a ten percent increase followed, on continued rotation, by a further ten percent increase (Bard ¶[0042]).
(Do not source the value-derivation limitation from Chen. Chen transmits the same In or Out command throughout and has no evolving value. That limitation comes from Bard.)
Regarding claim 3, Bard discloses a user interface, the control circuit receiving user interactions on it, and the first and second command messages being transmitted in response to continued user interactions; the remote control device 116 acts as a rotary knob and transmits messages as the user continues to turn it (Bard ¶¶[0026], [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Bard's user interface comprises a rotation portion and the user interactions comprise rotation of it; the remote control device 116 acts as a rotary knob whose rotation in one direction or another increases or decreases the lighting level (Bard ¶[0026]; see also ¶[0091] (user interface detecting a rotation)).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses starting a usage timer in response to the interaction and detecting the continued user interaction in response to the timer exceeding a usage threshold. Chen's transmitter changes its transmission sequence after "the first 1.5 seconds after the In button 42 (Out button 44) has been depressed" (Chen col. 7, ln. 54–57); measuring that 1.5-second period from the depression of the button, and acting when it elapses. It would have been obvious to implement the modification of claim 2 using such a timer for the reasons given above.
Regarding Claim 8, Bard changes the level "by a predefined amount when rotated a predefined distance" (¶¶[0029], [0042]), which is the angular position change threshold, and Chen supplies the timer threshold.
Regarding claim 10. Bard as modified discloses determining that the first command messages have been transmitted at the first transmission frequency for the threshold period after continued rotation of the rotation portion for that period (Bard ¶[0042] (continued rotation); Chen col. 7, ln. 54–56 (first 1.5 seconds of continued depression)).
Regarding claim 11. Bard discloses detecting that the continued interaction has stopped and, on that detection, transmitting a further message; on reaching the end of a rotation event, the remote sends a message indicating to each lighting device the intensity level at which it should be operating (Bard ¶[0080]).
Claim 11 further requires returning to the first transmission frequency for third command messages transmitted after a subsequent user interaction. Chen discloses this. Chen's faster first sequence; the 45 ms / 54 ms cycle; "repeatedly occurs for the first 1.5 seconds after the In button 42 (Out button 44) has been depressed" (Chen col. 7, ln. 54–56), so each new depression of the button restarts the first, faster regime. In the combination, a subsequent user interaction therefore returns the device to the first transmission frequency.
Regarding claim 13. Bard's electrical load comprises a lighting load and the values comprise different respective lighting levels (Bard ¶¶[0028], [0042]).
Regarding claim 15. Bard discloses that the respective lighting level in each command message is determined in response to an amount of change in an angular position of the rotation portion during the continued user interaction. Bard's remote identifies "a rotation of a predefined distance or time" and sends a message instructing a corresponding increase, and on continued rotation of a predefined distance or time sends respective messages instructing a further increase (Bard ¶[0042]; see also ¶[0029]). A rotation of a predefined distance is a change in the angular position of the rotation portion.
Bard never uses "angular position" or "angular velocity"; it measures rotation as "a relative step change" or "a rotation of a predefined distance or time" (¶¶[0026], [0029], [0042], [0067]). Treating a rotational distance as a change in angular position is sound; they are the same physical quantity; but it is a construction, so say so expressly rather than citing Bard as disclosing the term. The same step is needed for claims 8, 9 and 27.)
Regarding claim 17. Bard in view of Chen discloses the device of claim 17 for substantially the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2, claim 17 reciting a user interface configured to receive user interactions, detection of a continued user interaction for a threshold period, transmission of a first plurality of command messages at a transmission frequency prior to the threshold period, a decrease in the transmission frequency in response to continued user interaction after the threshold period, and transmission of a second plurality at the decreased frequency.
Claim 17 further requires that each command message include a respective command configured to control the electrical load based on a period of time between the plurality of command messages.
Bard discloses this expressly. Bard teaches that "[t]he rate of change or time period of change that is sent with the command is selected such that the lighting device reaches the target lighting level before or at the same time as receiving the next unicast message" (Bard ¶[0073]). The rate of change carried within the command is thus selected as a function of the period until the next command message.
Regarding claim 18. Rotation portion; Bard (¶¶[0026], [0091]).
Regarding claim 19. Starting a timer on the interaction, the threshold period being at expiration of the timer; Chen's measurement of the first 1.5 seconds from depression of the button (Chen col. 7, ln. 54–57), for the reasons and with the caution stated at claim 5.
Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 requires that the second values be configured to cause a greater amount of change at the electrical load than the first values.
In the combination, the interval between successive command messages increases when the transmission frequency is decreased; in Chen, from a cycle of about 45 ms of transmission plus 54 ms of interruption to one of about 45 ms plus 154 ms (Chen col. 7, ln. 49–60). Bard teaches selecting the rate or amount of change carried in each command in relation to the time before the next command is received (Bard ¶[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having adopted Chen's longer interval, to increase the amount of change represented by each of the later command messages, in order to preserve the overall rate at which the load changes as the user continues the interaction. Bard identifies the alternative as undesirable, teaching that a rate limit exceeded may cause communications to be stopped or may limit "the lighting levels to be discrete or choppy, which may be undesirable" (Bard ¶[0004]). Making a larger change per command over a longer interval maintains the same perceived response while sending fewer messages.
Regarding claim 21. Bard discloses that the values comprise lighting levels, and that load control devices include "an audio device for controlling a speaker, an HVAC device for controlling temperature" (Bard ¶[0011]; see also ¶¶[0028], [0063], [0076]), and that digital messages may be transmitted "to control a volume level of the audio device, a temperature level of the HVAC device, or otherwise control a level at which an electrical load may be operated" (¶[0030]). Shade levels: Bard's motorized window treatment (¶[0063]; ¶[0082] (motor drive unit for a motorized window treatment)).
Regarding claim 22. First and second transmission intervals as periods between periodic transmissions, the second greater than the first; Chen (col. 7, ln. 49–60), for the reasons given with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claims 29–35. Bard in view of Chen discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by at least one control circuit, cause it to perform the operations of claims 29–35, for substantially the reasons set forth with respect to claims 2–13 and 15. Bard discloses a memory storing instructions for the control circuit's operation; the control circuit 602 may store information in and retrieve information from the memory 604, which may include a non-removable and/or a removable memory (Bard ¶[0088]; FIG. 6).
Regarding claims 37–40. As set forth with respect to claims 17–22.
Regarding claims 44–50. As set forth with respect to claims 2–13 and 15, the recited steps corresponding to the operations the claim 2 control circuit is configured to perform.
Regarding claims 52–55. As set forth with respect to claims 17–22.
Claims 16, 36 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bard in view of Chen and further in view of Bernardi (US 5,684, 471, hereinafter “Bernardi”).
Regarding claim 16, Bard in view of Chen discloses the device of claim 2 for the reasons set forth above, the threshold period of time of claim 2 being the first threshold period of time of claim 16 and the second transmission frequency being that reached after it.
Claim 16 further requires decreasing from the second transmission frequency to a third transmission frequency after a second threshold period of time, the third transmission frequency being zero hertz such that the control circuit stops periodically transmitting command messages.
Bernardi discloses a hand-held remote control transmitter that times a continuously maintained key closure and, when that closure has persisted for a predetermined duration, ceases transmission while the key remains depressed. "In accordance with the invention, when a key closure is maintained continuously for 60 seconds or more, the device enters a kill mode in which substantially less power is consumed by the transmitter in order to conserve battery life" (Bernardi col. 2, ln. 44–48). The duration is measured by a software kill counter that is reset when the key depression is detected (col. 3, ln. 8–10 (step 36)), incremented as key scanning proceeds every 10 milliseconds (col. 3, ln. 12–15 (steps 38, 40)), and compared against "a maximum predetermined value such as 60 seconds" (col. 3, ln. 15–17 (step 42)). On reaching that value the program branches to the kill mode of step 52, and the transmitter remains there "until a key release is detected (step 54)" (col. 3, ln. 26–33; FIG. 2).
In the kill mode, transmission stops while the control circuit continues to operate: "the transmitter remains in a kill mode in which oscillator 18 continues to run and microprocessor 12 continues key scanning but there is no IR transmission nor visible LED operation" (col. 2, ln. 59–63).
Bernardi teaches this to address the excessive battery drain that results from inadvertent long-duration key closures, in transmitters in which "continuous commands are sent as long as a key is depressed" (col. 1, ln. 23–27; see also col. 1, ln. 34–39, 49–53), and states that the kill mode is entered "if either continuous IR transmission persists for at least 60 seconds (loop 38-44) or a key is depressed for at least 60 seconds (loop 38-48)" (col. 3, ln. 36–40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Bard as modified by Chen with a further decrease, after a second and longer threshold period of continued user interaction, to a transmission frequency of zero hertz, as taught by Bernardi. Chen already teaches reducing the transmission rate once sustained actuation has persisted past a first threshold, and Bernardi teaches that where such actuation persists far longer the transmission should be discontinued altogether, the continued transmission having ceased to serve any purpose and serving only to drain the transmitter's battery. Applying Bernardi's teaching as a further stage in Chen's staged reduction is the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. MPEP §2143(I)(C).
Regarding claims 36 and 51. As set forth with respect to claim 16.
Claims 23–25, 27, 28, 41–43 and 56–58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bard in view of Murakami (US 2016/0381770 A1, hereinafter “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 23. Bard dicloses a remote control device comprising a user interface that c/omprises a rotation portion and a control circuit; remote control device 116 acting as a rotary knob (Bard ¶[0026]), and input device 600 with control circuit 602 and a user interface detecting a rotation (¶¶[0087], [0091]; FIG. 6).
Bard discloses determining an amount of rotation of the rotation portion that has occurred, and determining a change in a lighting level of a lighting load based on that amount; the remote identifies a rotation of a predefined distance or for a predefined time and transmits a command to increase or decrease the lighting level by a predefined amount (Bard ¶¶[0029], [0042]).
Bard discloses transmitting, to a lighting control device associated with the lighting load, a command message comprising a command for adjusting the lighting level and a fade period over which the lighting level is to be adjusted; Bard's move-to-level command identifies a lighting level to which the lighting devices may change and includes the amount of time over which the lighting level may be changed (Bard ¶[0028]).
Bard does not expressly disclose determining an updated lighting level based on a current level of the lighting load and the determined change, and transmitting that updated level. Bard's rotation-responsive commands are described as move-with-rate commands conveying a relative change (¶[0067]).
Murakami discloses that determination. In Murakami, control processor 23 "stores a value (for example, a dimming level) indicating an illumination state of luminaire 30 in the nonvolatile memory included in control processor 23, and updates the value stored in the nonvolatile memory when a manipulation for changing the illumination state of luminaire 30 is detected" (Murakami ¶[0030]), and upon a user manipulation the control processor "generates a dimming command for increasing the dimming level by 1% from the current dimming level," the current dimming level being "a value stored inside (nonvolatile memory) of control processor 23" (¶[0053]; see also ¶[0054] (decrease on the down button)). For a maintained input, the processor "calculates dimming level L1 which the current dimming level should be after 200 msec in the case of increasing the current dimming level (dimming level stored inside) at a constant slope, and generates a dimming command having calculated dimming level L1" (¶[0066]); after a lapse of 200 msec it generates a command "having dimming level L2 calculated by increasing the current dimming level at the constant slope" (¶[0068]), then L3 "calculated by further increasing the current dimming level" (¶[0070]); and on the finish of the hold-down it "stores, in the nonvolatile memory inside control processor 23, dimming level L3 calculated immediately before" (¶[0071]). Murakami's dimming command carries both the dimming level and a fade period; "'Fade period' is a parameter specifying a transition period over which the current brightness is changed, by means of fading, to the brightness specified by the 'dimming level'" (¶[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the updated lighting level in Bard's remote control device from a current level maintained at the device together with the rotation-derived change, and to transmit that updated level with the fade period, as taught by Murakami. Bard already transmits move-to-level commands that identify an absolute lighting level together with a change time (Bard ¶[0028]); Murakami supplies the known technique by which a controller maintains the load's current level and computes the absolute target from it. The reason to do so is that an absolute target level, unlike a relative step, causes each receiving device to arrive at the same level regardless of any message it may have missed; which addresses the very inconsistency Bard identifies when individually addressed messages are implemented at different times (Bard ¶¶[0072]–[0073]).
Regarding claim 24. Adding the determined change to the current level to generate the updated level; Murakami's dimming command "for increasing the dimming level by 1% from the current dimming level," with the dimming level parameter set to "1% up from stored value (value stored inside)" (Murakami ¶[0053]).
Regarding claim 25. A second rotation, a second change, a second updated level determined from the first updated level, and a second command message; Murakami's successive calculation of L2 "by increasing the current dimming level at the constant slope" after the first command (Murakami ¶[0068]), and of L3 "by further increasing the current dimming level" (¶[0070]).
Regarding claim 27. Amount of rotation determined from a change in an angular position; Bard's rotation of a predefined distance (Bard ¶¶[0029], [0042]), with the construction step stated at claim 15.
Regarding claim 28. The current level based on a previously transmitted command message; Murakami stores the dimming level indicating the luminaire's illumination state in nonvolatile memory and updates that stored value when a manipulation is detected (Murakami ¶[0030]), and on the finish of a hold-down stores "dimming level L3 calculated immediately before," which is the level carried in the last command transmitted (¶¶[0070]–[0071]).
Regarding claims 41–43 and 56–58. As set forth with respect to claims 23, 24 and 27 respectively, in computer-readable-medium and method form.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Note Bard is published as US 2018/0014387 A1 on January 11, 2018, sixteen months before the May 17, 2019 effective filing date, and is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1). The exception at §102(b)(2)(C) applies only to disclosures qualifying as prior art under §102(a)(2) and has no application to a §102(a)(1) printed publication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 26 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:
Claim 6 adds a second at which excessive usage is found and the frequency drops.
Claim 9 needs a threshold on the magnitude of the control change. Bard sets a ten-percent increment but never compares that increment against a threshold and acts on the comparison. Same shape as claim 7's angular velocity: the quantity is in Bard, the threshold on it isn't.
Claim 12 needs a final user interaction after the continued interaction stopped. Chen's Stop is automatic on release; Bard's message fires on detecting the stop. Both are triggered by the cessation, not by a new event after it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights