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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/062,777 filed 02/25/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falc et al. (WO 2017/137526), herein Falc, citations refer to provided English translation.
Consider claim 1, Falc clearly teaches a hardware apparatus with a self-recalibration mechanism, (Fig. 12) the hardware apparatus comprising:
a movable mechanical operating element configured to be moved by a user within a predetermined mechanical movement range; (Figs. 3, 12: Lever 12 can be moved by a user within the active zones, pg. 2, para. 1, pg. 7 para. 10, pg. 12 para. 4-5.) and
a sensor device for determining a position of the movable mechanical operating element within the predetermined mechanical movement range (Fig. 12: Position sensor 14 detects the position of lever 12, pg. 12 para. 4-5.)
wherein the sensor device is configured to perform a self-recalibration by:
setting a current actual position of the movable mechanical operating element in a non-actuated state as a mechanical zero position, (Fig. 11: In step S133 the rest position of the joystick is detected, pg. 11 para. 9.) and
setting a zero position zone extending around the mechanical zero position, (Fig. 11: In step S134 the static dead zone is recentered to the detected rest position, pg. 11 para. 10.)
wherein the sensor device is configured to treat all positions of the movable mechanical operating element that are located inside the zero position zone as virtual zero positions. (Fig. 3: The static dead zone defines an area wherein the position of the joystick will be considered centered, pg. 8 para. 3, pg. 11 para. 6.)
Consider claim 2, Falc clearly teaches the zero position zone is defined as a circular area with a radius extending around the mechanical zero position. (The static dead zone is a circle with a defined radius, pg. 12 para. 2-3.)
Consider claim 3, Falc clearly teaches the sensor device is configured to set a size of the zero position zone to a fixed value that covers different mechanical zero positions of the movable mechanical operating element that suffer from position deviations being caused by at least one of hysteresis, noise, or offsets. (The static dead zone is set to a specific radius around the rest position to account for drifts on the joystick rest position, pg. 11 para. 6-9.)
Consider claim 4, Falc clearly teaches the sensor device is configured to set a size of the zero position zone to a fixed value that covers between 2% to 8% of a total movement range of the movable mechanical operating element. (The static dead zone is defined as an area between 0% to 10% of the maximum displacement of the joystick, pg. 11 para. 8.)
Consider claim 12, Falc clearly teaches the sensor device is configured to perform the self-recalibration iteratively, wherein, in a first calibration step at a first time instant, the sensor device is configured to set a first current actual position of the movable mechanical operating element as a first mechanical zero position, and to define the first mechanical zero position as a center of a first zero position zone, and wherein, in a subsequent second calibration step at a second time instant, the sensor device is configured to set a second current actual position of the movable mechanical operating element as a second mechanical zero position, and to define the second mechanical zero position as a center of a second zero position zone. (Fig. 11: Configuration of the static dead zone, including step S133, is performed from time to time, pg. 11 para. 6-10.)
Consider claim 16, Falc clearly teaches a method for performing a self-recalibration in a hardware apparatus, (Fig. 11) the method comprising:
determining a position of an operating element that is movable by a user within a predetermined mechanical movement range; (Figs. 3, 12: Lever 12 can be moved by a user within the active zones, pg. 2, para. 1, pg. 7 para. 10, pg. 12 para. 4-5.) and
performing the self-recalibration by:
setting a current actual position of the operating element in a non-actuated state as a mechanical zero position; (Fig. 11: In step S133 the rest position of the joystick is detected, pg. 11 para. 9.) and
setting a zero position zone extending around the mechanical zero position, (Fig. 11: In step S134 the static dead zone is recentered to the detected rest position, pg. 11 para. 10.) wherein all positions of the operating element being located inside the zero position zone are treated as virtual zero positions. (Fig. 3: The static dead zone defines an area wherein the position of the joystick will be considered centered, pg. 8 para. 3, pg. 11 para. 6.)
Consider claim 17, Falc clearly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, for performing, when being executed on a computer or a signal processor, a method for performing a self-recalibration, (Fig. 12) wherein the method comprises:
determining a position of an operating element that is movable by a user within a predetermined mechanical movement range; (Figs. 3, 12: Lever 12 can be moved by a user within the active zones, pg. 2, para. 1, pg. 7 para. 10, pg. 12 para. 4-5.)and
performing the self-recalibration by:
setting a current actual position of the operating element in a non-actuated state as a mechanical zero position; (Fig. 11: In step S133 the rest position of the joystick is detected, pg. 11 para. 9.) and
setting a zero position zone extending around the mechanical zero position, (Fig. 11: In step S134 the static dead zone is recentered to the detected rest position, pg. 11 para. 10.) wherein all positions of the operating element being located inside the zero position zone are treated as virtual zero positions. (Fig. 3: The static dead zone defines an area wherein the position of the joystick will be considered centered, pg. 8 para. 3, pg. 11 para. 6.)
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falc et al. (WO 2017/137526) in view of Kaech et al. (US 2019/0212832), herein Kaech.
Consider claim 13, Falc clearly teaches the sensor device is configured to; perform calibration steps for creating a zero position zone.
However, Falc does not explicitly teach perform a plurality of consecutive calibration steps for creating a plurality of zero position zones, and to store a respective plurality of mechanical zero positions belonging to each of the plurality of zero position zones, and create a minimized zero position zone having a radius that includes each of the stored mechanical zero positions, wherein the size of the minimized zero position zone is smaller than the size of each one of the plurality of previously created zero position zones.
In an analogous art, Kaech, which discloses an input device, clearly teaches perform a plurality of consecutive calibration steps for creating a plurality of zero position zones, and to store a respective plurality of mechanical zero positions belonging to each of the plurality of zero position zones, and create a minimized zero position zone having a radius that includes each of the stored mechanical zero positions, wherein the size of the minimized zero position zone is smaller than the size of each one of the plurality of previously created zero position zones. (Fig. 2: The size of the dead zone region 212 is determined based on a plurality of sampled of resting points which create a distribution of the return-to-center region to more closely match the operation of the control stick, [0022], [0042].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Falc by perform a plurality of consecutive calibration steps for creating a plurality of zero position zones, and to store a respective plurality of mechanical zero positions belonging to each of the plurality of zero position zones, and create a minimized zero position zone having a radius that includes each of the stored mechanical zero positions, wherein the size of the minimized zero position zone is smaller than the size of each one of the plurality of previously created zero position zones, as taught by Kaech, for the benefit of more closely matching changes in the control stick over time.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falc et al. (WO 2017/137526) in view of Kaech et al. (US 2019/0212832) in view of Bedwell (US 2023/0256329).
Consider claim 14, Falc combined with Kaech clearly teaches creating the minimized zero position zone.
However, Falc combined with Kaech does not explicitly teach if the sensor device determines in a subsequent calibration step, after having created the minimized zero position zone, that a current actual position of the movable mechanical operating element in the non-actuated state is located outside the minimized zero position zone, then the sensor device is configured to dismiss the minimized zero position zone and to create a new zero position zone having a size that is larger than the size of the minimized zero position zone.
In an analogous art, Bedwell, which discloses an input device, clearly teaches if the sensor device determines in a subsequent calibration step, after having created the minimized zero position zone, that a current actual position of the movable mechanical operating element in the non-actuated state is located outside the minimized zero position zone, then the sensor device is configured to dismiss the minimized zero position zone and to create a new zero position zone having a size that is larger than the size of the minimized zero position zone. (Fig. 5: If the current neutral position of the analog stick is outside of the dead-zone then the dead-zone is adjusted to include the current neutral position, [0050]-[0053].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Falc combined with Kaech by if the sensor device determines in a subsequent calibration step, after having created the minimized zero position zone, that a current actual position of the movable mechanical operating element in the non-actuated state is located outside the minimized zero position zone, then the sensor device is configured to dismiss the minimized zero position zone and to create a new zero position zone having a size that is larger than the size of the minimized zero position zone, as taught by Bedwell, for the benefit of promptly adjusting the dead-zone when changes in the mechanism occur.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falc et al. (WO 2017/137526) in view of Bedwell (US 2023/0256329).
Consider claim 15, Falc clearly teaches the sensor device.
However, Falc does not explicitly teach wait for a lapse of a predetermined period of time during which the movable mechanical operating element is in a non-actuated state, in order to ensure that the movable mechanical operating element is in the non-actuated state, before performing the self-recalibration, or wherein the sensor device is configured to wait for an occurrence of a predetermined event indicating that the movable mechanical operating element is in the non-actuated state before performing the self-recalibration.
In an analogous art, Bedwell, which discloses an input device, clearly teaches wait for a lapse of a predetermined period of time during which the movable mechanical operating element is in a non-actuated state, in order to ensure that the movable mechanical operating element is in the non-actuated state, before performing the self-recalibration, (Fig. 5: If a stationary time period exceeds a threshold then the dead-zone recalibration is performed, [0046]-[0049].) or wherein the sensor device is configured to wait for an occurrence of a predetermined event indicating that the movable mechanical operating element is in the non-actuated state before performing the self-recalibration. (Fig. 5: If the current neutral position of the analog stick is outside of the dead-zone then the dead-zone is adjusted to include the current neutral position, [0050]-[0053].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Falc by wait for a lapse of a predetermined period of time during which the movable mechanical operating element is in a non-actuated state, in order to ensure that the movable mechanical operating element is in the non-actuated state, before performing the self-recalibration, or wherein the sensor device is configured to wait for an occurrence of a predetermined event indicating that the movable mechanical operating element is in the non-actuated state before performing the self-recalibration, as taught by Bedwell, for the benefit of promptly adjusting the dead-zone when changes in the mechanism occur.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 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
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights