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
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 36, 37, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to Claim 36, it is unknown what manipulating objects in 3D space means. Are the objects internal or external to the input device or the computing device? Are the objects is a 3D space in the virtual world of the computing operations or in the physical world? Assuming, for example, there is manipulation of a real-world room surround sound system, is the manipulation based on signals from the input device, the computing device, or both? To advance prosecution, Claim 36 is construed to mean “wherein the one or more operations comprise manipulating an object.” Relatedly, Claim 39 compounds the Claim 36 construction problem wherein it is unknown what is meant by an application is a “3D audio environment. The “application” are operations of the computing device so it is unclear how they can also be an “environment.” Further, the “objects” include a sound source or a listener. It is unknown how a listener, construed as a human, is manipulated by the operations. To advance prosecution, Claim 39 is construed to mean “s
4. For Claims 37 and 38, it is unknown what “the one or more objects are manipulated within a single plane” is intended to mean. Is what is being manipulated is in a single plane of a real-world environment such as manipulating only objects on a floor but not of objects on the walls? Or, is the claim meant to describe movement of the body in one plane in order to manipulate the objects in the environment? To advance prosecution, the limitation is construed to mean “wherein the one or more objects are manipulated.
Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 21-22, 24-31, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 8,199,107 to Xu.
In Reference to Claims 21 and 35
Xu discloses a system and input device (Figs. 4a, input device 300), comprising:
an input device (Fig. 4a 300), comprising:
a generally spherical body (Fig. 4a first element 302 understood to be somewhat round) configured to rest in a user's hand (Fig. 6b evidences the input device rests in the hand);
processing circuitry (Fig. 3a) configured to detect an orientation of the body (“The input device 10 includes a 3D orientation tracker 112 (see FIGS. 2c and 2d) to track the movement of the input device 10. In general, the 3D tracker 112 can be an inertial, mechanical, acoustic, magnetic, or an optical tracker that provides sufficiently accurate data and is suitable for tracking the three-dimensional movement of the input device 10 for the applications in which the input device 10 is used.” Col. 8, ll. 4-14) and generate an output signal based on at least the detected orientation of the body (Col. 16. Ll. 65-66); and
a base configured to rest on a planar support surface (Fig. 4a second element 304 with lower disc-shaped portion 306) and comprising a concave region (Fig. 4a upper portion 308 which is shaped in a complementary fashion with respect to the shape of the first element 302 i.e., concave Col. 18, ll. 47-55), wherein the body is configured to be removably received in the concave region of the base (Fig. 4a, Fig. 4d “the user can place the first element 302 on top of the second element” 304 (Col. 19, ll. 20-21),
a computing device communicatively coupled to the input device (Fig. 3a host computer 202 in communication with input device 10) and comprising a processor (Fig. 3a OS 216) configured to perform (perform the method of Fig. 3b where “[t]he host computer 202 includes an operating system 216 for controlling the operation of the host computer 202 and running computer applications” Col. 14, ll. 14-17), comprising:
receiving the output signal generated by the processing circuitry of the input device, and initiating one or more operations of an application executing on the computing device based on the received output signal (“The host computer 200 also includes several drivers 218-222 that allow the input devices 10, 206 and 208 to provide input data to a computer application 224 running on the host computer 200.” Col. 14, ll. 1418-20).
In Reference to Claims 22 and 24
Xu discloses wherein the body 302 and the base 304 are configured to cooperate along a circular track {about the equator} defining a rotational axis, such that movement of the body is temporarily constrained to rotation about the rotational axis (the upper portion 308 is concave with banked sides creating a circular track such that when the sphere is in the base “[t]he user can place the first element 302 on top of the second element 304 and move the second element 304 in the X and Y direction” (Col. 19, ll. 30-32, Fig. 4b demonstrating constrained to rotation about a z {rotational} axis).
In Reference to Claims 25, 26, and 27
Xu discloses wherein an outer surface of the body comprises a flattened region configured to support the body on a planar support surface; 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; and the flattened region extends along a circumference of the body, and wherein the body is configured to roll along the flattened region where “[f]urther, in some alternative implementations of the interface device, data is not provided for each form factor. For instance, in some implementations, the housing of the interface device can be transformable between a spherical form factor, in which the interface device provides rotation data, and a truncated spherical form factor in which the interface device does not provide any data. Rather, the truncated spherical form factor is used so that the user can put the interface device down on a flat surface after use and not worry that the device will roll off the surface, fall to the ground and become damaged, which can happen if the input device only had a spherical form factor.” (Col. 23, ll. 64-67 and Col. 24, ll. 1-8). It is understood from this that the body can have a form factor including a truncated {flattened} region that supports the body and rests on a flat surface. The body is able to rotate about an axis perpendicular to the truncated region. The truncated region is around to entire circumference of the body. The body is able to roll along the flattened region when the body is tilted on its edge and moved in a circular direction.
In Reference to Claims 29 and 31
Xu discloses optical means of tracking orientation relative to the base where “Various different types of 2D tracking techniques can be used. For instance, the 2D tracker 110 can be implemented by an optical tracker similar to those found in optical computer mice as is commonly known to those skilled in the art. (Col. 7, ll. 16-19, “[t]he input device 10 includes a 3D orientation tracker 112 (see FIGS. 2c and 2d) to track the movement of the input device 10. In general, the 3D tracker 112 can be an inertial, mechanical, acoustic, magnetic, or an optical tracker that provides sufficiently accurate data and is suitable for tracking the three-dimensional movement of the input device 10 for the applications in which the input device 10 is used. (Col. 8, ll. 4-14).
In Reference to Claim 30
Xu also discloses a magnetic coil in the input device (Col. 7, l. 31-37) such that 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 as part of Xu’s various types of tracking means (Col. 8, ll. 9-13, see also Col. 14, ll. 47-49)).
In Reference to Claims 36 and 39
Xu discloses manipulation of objects and of object pertinent to audio/sound devices where “[t]he various interface devices described herein can also be used in a variety of output configurations. For instance, the interface devices can provide a suitable form factor to pass information to other forms of technology such as a computer monitor to display the manipulation of 3D objects or with audio speakers to enhance audio cues related to object translation and rotation. The interface devices can also act as a stand-alone device by including all of the necessary output technology within the various form factors. For example, the interface devices can include haptic feedback, such as an audio, visual or vibrating means, for example, to alert the user of the collision of objects within the 3D virtual space of a computer application. In these cases, using the system 200 as an example, the input device module 224a provides feedback signals, based on the results of user interaction with the computer application, to the interface device that can then be transformed to haptic feedback by an appropriate haptic element of the input device. Alternatively, the interface device can include audio or visual cues to communicate that collaborative equipment, such as a 3D tracker, for example, is working.” Col. 23, ll. 34-54).
In Reference to Claims 37 and 38
Xu discloses wherein the body 302 and the base 304 are configured to cooperate along a circular track {about the equator} defining a rotational axis, such that movement of the body is temporarily constrained to rotation about the rotational axis (the upper portion 308 is concave with banked sides creating a circular track such that when the sphere is in the base “[t]he user can place the first element 302 on top of the second element 304 and move the second element 304 in the X and Y direction” (Col. 19, ll. 30-32, Fig. 4b demonstrating constrained to rotation about a z {rotational} axis).
In Reference to Claim 40
Xu discloses the input device and the computing device are wirelessly coupled (Col. 19, ll. 1-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
10. Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu.
Xu is silent wherein the flattened region is configured to be removably received in the concave region of the base. However, Xu discloses a range of form factors where the body is
Truncated (Fig. 1a), where the body is not truncated (Fig. 1b); where the body is spherical (Fig. 3c); where the body is spherical with a second {base} element 304 (Fig. 4a); where the spherical body is mated to element 304 (Fig. 4b); where the body is not mated with element 304 (Fig. 4d); where the body and elements 304 are other shapes (Fig. 5a-f). What remains is a demonstration of Xu showing a combination wherein the truncated form factor is used in combination with element 304. One of skill in the art would recognize that but for no other reason the combination may exist simply stack the peripherals when not in use or for a use that combines the form factors to allow a quicker conversion from use on a flat surface two direction use to use with an access of rotation when placed back in element 304 for computer 3D application where more degrees of freedom are needed. Thus, given the limited number of combinations and reasonable motivations to combine, one of skill in the art would deem combining the truncated sphere with the element 304 as obvious to try (Under KSR (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 23 and 32-34 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.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art made of record does not teach wherein the body and the base are configured to cooperate along a further track extending substantially perpendicular to the circular track, wherein the base comprises a removable insert configured to be received in the concave region and shape-matched to the further track. Also, the references do not disclose and it would not have been obvious to require that 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 because the user of Fig. 6 can get his cue to the orientation from the on screen orientation.
No Double Patenting
13. Co-pending claims in Application 19/085,118 are similar to the instant claims but recite processing circuitry configured to detect an orientation of the body “relative to one or more reference points external to the spherical body” which is distinct and non-obvious from the instant claims. Thus, there is no obviousness type provisional double patenting.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
16. Examiner interviews may be available depending on the stage of prosecution and provided 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.
17. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights