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 § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being vague and indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention for the reasons stated below.
Claims 21 and 35 recites “generally spherical body” and is unclear as to what the meets and bounds are for the term “generally”. The Examiner interprets the language to be that of spherical. Appropriate Correction is required.
Claim 24 recites “substantially perpendicular” and is unclear as to what the meets and bounds are for the term “substantially”. Appropriate Correction is required.
Dependent claims 22-24 and 36-40 are rejected for the same reasons above as being dependent upon the rejected claims above.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 25, 28, 30, and 32 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 21-24, 35-36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazynski et al., US 2019/0042003 in view of Maruyama et al., US 20200114253.
Regarding claim 21, Parazynski teaches of an input device (See Figs.2-4) comprising:
a body configured to rest in a user's hand (See Figs.2-4 and [0037]); and
processing circuitry configured to detect an orientation of the body relative to one or
more reference points external to the body and generate an output signal based on at least the detected orientation of the body (See Figs.3-4 and [0029]-[0036] orientation of controller and reference frame and/or reference point to target and generating an output signal of the situational awareness display based on the detected orientation),
wherein the body comprises an outer surface and a plurality of markings arranged over the outer surface and configured to indicate the orientation of the body to the user (See Fig.3 and [0029]-[0035] and [0046]-[0053] graphical display to include the degree orientations to the target which is an indication of the orientation of the body as well as arrows which are markings).
Parazynski is silent with respect to the body being spherical.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maruyama teaches of the body being spherical (See Figs 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Parazynski to have incorporated the teachings of Maruyama for the mere benefit of having a controller which is more ergonomic to the user.
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the markings comprise a plurality of visually distinct symbols arranged non-uniformly over the outer surface of the body (See Parazynski, Fig.3 and [0029]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the outer surface of the body comprises a flattened region configured to support the body on a planar support surface (See Parazynski, Fgi.2;5A; Maruyama, [0115]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the flattened region is configured to rest on the planar support surface, and wherein the body is configured to rotate about a rotational axis extending substantially perpendicular to the flattened region (See Parazynski, [0065]; Maruyama, Figs. 12-16; [0137]).
Regarding claim 35, Parazynski teaches of a system comprising:
an input device (See analysis of claim 21) comprising:
a body configured to rest in a user's hand (See analysis of claim 21); and
processing circuitry configured to detect an orientation of the body relative to one
or more reference points external to the body and generate an output signal based on at least the detected orientation of the body (See analysis of claim 21),
wherein the body comprises an outer surface and a plurality of markings arranged
over the outer surface and configured to indicate the orientation of the body to the user (See analysis of claim 21); and a computing device communicatively coupled to the input device and comprising one or more processors configured to perform operations (See Figs. 3-4; [0057]-[0063]) comprising:
receiving the output signal generated by the processing circuitry of the input
device (See Figs, 3-4; [0057]-[0063]); and
initiating one or more operations of an application executing on the computing
device based on the received output signal (See Figs, 3-4; [0057]-[0063]).
Parazynski is silent with respect to the body being spherical.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maruyama teaches of the body being spherical (See Figs 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Parazynski to have incorporated the teachings of Maruyama for the mere benefit of having a controller which is more ergonomic to the user.
Regarding claim 36, the combination teaches the system of claim 35, wherein the one or more operations comprise manipulating one or more objects in 3D space (See Parazynski, [0003], [0022]-[0023], [0033], and [0057]-[0060]; Maruyama, [0089]-[0090], [0097], and [0137]).
Regarding claim 39, the system of claim 36, wherein the application is a 3D audio environment, and the one or more objects are one or more of a sound source and a listener within the 3D space (See Maruyama, [0124]-[0176] sound objects which the 3D gaming environment).
Regarding claim 40, the system of claim 35, wherein the input device and the computing device are wirelessly coupled (See Parazynski, [0021], [0028] and [0043]-[0053]).
6. Claims 26-27, 29, 31, 33, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazynski et al., US 2019/0042003 in view of Maruyama et al., US 20200114253, and in further view of Ballagas et al., WO/2018194638.
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches the device of claim 21.
The combination is silent with respect to further comprising a base configured to rest on a planar support surface and comprising a concave region, wherein the body is configured to be removably received in the concave region of the base.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ballagas teaches of a base configured to rest on a planar support surface and comprising a concave region, wherein the body is configured to be removably received in the concave region of the base (See Fgis.1-3; [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Parazynski and Maruyama to have incorporated the teachings of Ballagas for the mere benefit of being able to dock the handheld for charging and storing.
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches the device of claim 26, wherein the body and the base are configured to cooperate along a circular track defining a rotational axis, such that movement of the body is temporarily constrained to rotation about the rotational axis (See Ballagas, Figs.1-3; [0018]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination teaches the device of claim 26, wherein the body and base are configured to cooperate along a track extending at least partially along an equator of the body, such that movement of the body is temporarily constrained to movement along the track (See Ballagas, Figs.1-3, and [0018]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination teaches the device of claim 26, wherein the outer surface of the body comprises a flattened region configured to support the body on a planar surface, and wherein the flattened region is configured to be removably received in the concave region of the base (See Maruyama, Fig.9, [0113]-[0126] the casing around the ball/body includes the casing; Ballagas; Figs.1-3 and [0018]-[0036] ball/including outer region/shell is removed from the concave region).
Regarding claim 33, the combination teaches the device of claim 26, wherein the base is configured to emit a magnetic field, wherein the device comprises a magnetic sensor arranged within the body configured to detect the magnetic field, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the orientation of the body based on data provided by the magnetic sensor (See Ballagas, [0018]-[0025] and [0044] manometer to sense orientation).
Regarding claims 37-38, the claim have been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 26-27, 29, 31, and 35.
7. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazynski et al., US 2019/0042003 in view of Maruyama et al., US 20200114253, and in further view of Fonken, US 10,983,605.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Parazynski, Maruyama teaches the device of claim 21. The combination is silent with respect to further comprising one or more image sensors arranged within the body and configured to capture image data of the surroundings of the device, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the orientation of the body based on the image data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fonken teaches further comprising one or more image sensors arranged within the body and configured to capture image data of the surroundings of the device, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the orientation of the body based on the image data (See Fgis.1, 4-5; Abstract; col.4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Parazynski and Maruyama to have incorporated the teachings of Fonken for the mere benefit of having flexibility as to how the orientation is determined.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights