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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 20-25, 27, 28, 33, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (WO 2019083751).
Re claim 1: Tran discloses a system, comprising: an input device configured to be held by or in contact with a user in use to operate the video game system (See Fig. 1A: object 100), the input device comprising one or more haptic actuators (see Fig. 1A, objects 132A-F);
and a processor configured to receive text or speech characters to be conveyed to a user and encode the characters in a haptic signal (see Abstract: “The converse may also occur, where a combination of the paddles may provide haptic feedback detectable by a user holding a game controller so that the paddles encode braille output (or other data), allowing a user to receive output simply by contact with the paddles.”);
wherein the one or more haptic actuators are configured to receive the haptic signal and actuate based on the haptic signal to convey the characters to the user, and wherein the one or more haptic actuators are configured to generate localized stimulation that is perceptible by a user at different regions of the input device (see Abstract: “The converse may also occur, where a combination of the paddles may provide haptic feedback detectable by a user holding a game controller so that the paddles encode braille output (or other data), allowing a user to receive output simply by contact with the paddles.”).
Re claims 20, 21, 24, 25 and 36: Tran discloses with respect to a computer implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a video game system, a plurality of text characters to be conveyed to a user (see Abstract), encoding, by the processor, the characters in a haptic signal (see Abstract);
receiving, by one or more haptic actuators of an input device, the haptic signal, wherein the input device is configured to be in contact with a user in use to operate the video game system (see Abstract);
and actuating the one or more haptic actuators based on the haptic signal to convey the characters to the user, comprising generating localized stimulation that is perceptible by a user at different regions of the input (see Abstract).
Re claim 22: Tran discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 20, wherein the different regions are arranged approximately in a grid of at least three rows and at least two columns (see Fig. 1A: showing six haptic Braille paddles, i.e. regions, that are associated with a grid of three rows and three columns, or nine rows and six columns, depending on the perspective).
Re claim 23: Tran discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 22, wherein the input device comprises two triggers, wherein a haptic actuator is provided at each trigger, the method further comprising, generating localized stimulation at each trigger corresponding to a top row of the grid (There are multiple triggers associated with the top row of the grid as the top grid can represent a plurality of letters and words. Thus, there is localized stimulation associated with each letter and words associated with the top grid).
Re claim 27: Tran discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 20, wherein the actuating comprises generating localized stimulation at six or more different regions of the input device (see Fig. 1, showing 6 actuating paddles).
Re claim 28: Tran discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 22, wherein the one or more haptic actuators comprise one or more vibration units, wherein the actuating comprises generating vibration of the input device (see paragraph [0031]: In various embodiments, the Braille paddles may use bumps, pins, piezo structure, vibration, electric stimulation, or other haptic and/or otherwise feature a detectable output.)
Re claim 33. Tran discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 28, wherein the input device comprises four vibration units (see paragraph [0031]: “In various embodiments, the Braille paddles may use bumps, pins, piezo structure, vibration, electric stimulation, or other haptic and/or otherwise feature a detectable output.” & Fig. 1A: showing six paddles).
Re claim 35: Tran discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 20, wherein the input device is a handheld video game controller (see Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran.
Re claim 26: Tran fails to disclose with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 25, wherein the sequence comprises at least one pause of 20 ms or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tran to include pauses within the word sequences for the purposes of allowing the reader to read various words instead of a non-legible sequence of letters.
Claim(s) 29-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Califorrniaa (U.S. PGPUB 20210398452).
Re claim 29: Tran fails to discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 28, wherein the actuating comprises vibrating at different frequencies to generate vibration of the input device that is perceived by the user as originating from different corresponding regions of the input device. However, Califorrniaa discloses a similar method of transmitting subtitle information to a user device to encodes the information into braille which is transmitted to the user through vibrating haptic feedback. Califorrniaa further discloses that the vibrating haptic feedback produces feedback using different vibrating frequencies (see paragraph [0309]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game controller system of Tran to produce different vibrating frequencies for the haptic feedback elements as taught by Califorrniaa for the purpose of differentiating between different feedbacks that provide different braille responses.
Re claim 30: Tran in view of Califorrniaa discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 29, wherein the actuating comprises vibrating at a first frequency to provide vibration perceived as originating from a first region of the input device and at a second frequency to provide vibration perceived as originating from a second region of the input device, wherein the first frequency is higher than the second frequency and the first region is closer to an upper end of the input device than the second region, the upper end positioned distally from the user during use (since Tran discloses the use of different frequencies for different inputs, see paragraph [0309], it is inherent that one frequency will be higher than the other).
Re claim 31 and 32: Tran in view of Califorrniaa obviously discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 30, wherein the first frequency is about 400 Hz and the second frequency is about 220 or 130 Hz. Because Califorrniaa discloses different vibrating frequencies between 200Hz and 350Hz for the haptic feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to use frequencies as high as 400Hz for different vibrations as such is a predictable design choice wherein increasing the frequency to 400Hz would have still produced vibrating haptic feedback with a particular rhythm pattern.
Re claim 34: Tran fails to disclose with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 28, wherein the one or more vibration units are configured to vibrate at a frequency between 1 and 500 Hz. However, Califorrniaa discloses a similar method of transmitting subtitle information to a user device to encodes the information into braille which is transmitted to the user through vibrating haptic feedback. Califorrniaa further discloses that the frequencies of the vibrating feedback can be between 200-300Hz (0307-0308). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game controller system of Tran to produce different vibrating frequencies for the haptic feedback elements as taught by Califorrniaa for the purpose of differentiating between different feedbacks that provide different braille responses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights