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 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, 3, 4 and 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siu et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0013991 A1).
As to claim 1, Siu shows an input device (i.e. remote control device 220, Fig. 3 and para. 49) comprising: a main body (i.e. housing, Fig. 3 and para. 49); a plurality of operation buttons (i.e. content service keys 281, 282, etc., Fig. 2 and para. 48) that are attached to the main body each operation button (Figs. 2 and 3 and para. 48), comprising an upper surface portion (i.e. of key cap base 520, Figs. 5A, 5B and 7 and paras. 55 and 56) and being configured on the main body to be pushed downward (i.e. pressed, Fig. 7 and para. 62), the upper surface having an opening (i.e. hole 560) formed therein (Figs. 5A, 5B and 7 and para. 56); and a plurality of mark members (i.e. key cap covers 510, Figs. 5A, 5B and 7 and paras. 55 and 56), each mark member comprising a top portion indicating a mark corresponding to a function (i.e. play, for example) allocated to a respective operation button of the plurality of operation buttons (Figs. 5A, 5B and 7 and paras. 55 and 56) and each being detachably attached to the respective operation button of the plurality of operation buttons (i.e. interchangeable, Figs. 4, 5A and 5B and paras. 51, 52 and 54), each of the mark members comprising a fitting protrusion (i.e. cap pin 540) that protrudes downward and is configured to fit in the opening of the respective operation button (Figs. 4, 5A, 5B and 7 and paras. 56 and 61).
As to claim 9, Siu shows an input device (i.e. remote control device 220, Fig. 3 and para. 49) comprising: a main body (i.e. housing, Fig. 3 and para. 49); a plurality of operation buttons (i.e. content service keys 281, 282, etc., Fig. 2 and para. 48) that are attached to the main body each operation button (Figs. 2 and 3 and para. 48), comprising an upper surface portion (i.e. of key cap base 520, Figs. 5A, 5B and 7 and paras. 55 and 56) and being configured on the main body to be pushed downward (i.e. pressed, Fig. 7 and para. 62); and a plurality of mark members (i.e. key cap covers 510, Figs. 5A, 5B and 7 and paras. 55 and 56), each mark member comprising a top portion indicating a mark corresponding to a function (i.e. play, for example) allocated to a respective operation button of the plurality of operation buttons (Figs. 5A, 5B and 7 and paras. 55 and 56) and each being detachably attached to the respective operation button of the plurality of operation buttons (i.e. interchangeable, Figs. 4, 5A and 5B and paras. 51, 52 and 54), wherein each of the mark members is detachably attached to a position closer to an edge of the upper surface portion than a central portion of the upper surface portion (Figs. 4, 5A and 5B and paras. 51, 52 and 54).
As to claims 3 and 10, Siu shows that each operation button of the plurality of operation buttons is detachably attached to the main body (Figs. 4, 5A and 5B and paras. 51, 52 and 54).
As to claims 4 and 11, Siu shows that a part of outer circumferential edges of the top portions overlaps with a part of outer circumferential portions of the operation buttons (Figs. 5A, 5B and 7).
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.
Claims 5 – 8 and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siu in view of Meyers et al. (US Pat. 5,883,690).
As to claims 5 and 12, Siu shows that each of the top portions includes a lower surface portion that faces the upper surface portion in a state where the mark member is attached to the operation button (Figs. 5A, 5B and 7).
Siu does not show that each of the upper surface portions is curved in an up-down direction, and each of the lower surface portions is flat in the up-down direction.
Myers shows that an upper surface portion (of clip 24) is curved in an up-down direction (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 20 – 22), and that a lower surface portion (of attachment band 26) is flat in the up-down direction (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 20 – 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Siu with those of Meyers because designing the system in this way allows the device to support the joystick adapter solidly on the controller body (Col. 6, lines 27 – 31).
As to claims 6 and 13, Siu does not show that each of the plurality of operation buttons includes an outer circumferential portion that crosses over an outer circumferential edge of the main body and extends outward, and at least a part of the top portions overlaps with a part of the outer circumferential portions.
Meyers shows an operation button (including clip 24) includes an outer circumferential portion (i.e. arms 54/tabs56) that crosses over an outer circumferential edge of a main body and extends outward (Figs. 1, 2 and 4), and at least a part of a top portion overlaps with a part of the outer circumferential portions (Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Siu with those of Meyers because designing the system in this way allows the device to support the joystick adapter solidly on the controller body (Col. 6, lines 27 – 31).
As to claims 7 and 14, Siu does not show that each of the openings includes a plurality of recesses formed along an edge of the opening, and each of the fitting protrusions includes at least one protrusion that fits into any one of the plurality of recesses.
Meyers shows that an opening (of contact body 40) includes a plurality of recesses (i.e. panels 48) formed along an edge of the opening (Figs. 3 and 8, Col. 4, lines 34 – 47 and Col. 4, line 64 – Col. 5, line 4), and that fitting protrusions (i.e. wings 30) include at least one protrusion that fits into any one of the plurality of recesses (Figs. 3, 7 and 8, Col. 4, lines 34 – 47 and Col. 4, line 64 – Col. 5, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Siu with those of Meyers because designing the system in this way allows the device to prevent unwanted rotation (Col. 4, lines 46 and 47).
As to claims 8 and 15, Siu does not show that each of the fitting protrusions includes a plurality of recesses, and each of the openings includes at least one protrusion that is formed along an edge of the opening and fits into at least any one of the plurality of recesses.
Meyers shows that show that a fitting protrusion includes a plurality of recesses, and an opening includes at least one protrusion that is formed along an edge of the opening and fits into at least any one of the plurality of recesses (Figs. 3, 7 and 8, Col. 4, lines 34 – 47 and Col. 4, line 64 – Col. 5, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Siu with those of Meyers because designing the system in this way allows the device to prevent unwanted rotation (Col. 4, lines 46 and 47).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights