DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 10-14) that Kerdreux, Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima each fail to disclose various features of claim 1. In response, it is noted that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Each reference was applied only for the limitation it was cited to teach, and applicant does not dispute that the combination accounts for every limitation of claim 1.
Applicant argues (Remarks, pp.15-16) that nothing suggests placing a three-degree-of-freedom wheel on the lateral face of Kerdreux, and that a push-button in a thumb notch is materially different from a wheel that rotates and undergoes two additional movements. This argument is not persuasive. Kerdreux itself lists “a trackwheel type wheel” among its pointer means (¶ 0047) and states that the pointer means may include “a wheel, or indeed button-type selector means” in a variant or in addition to the movable ball (¶ 0076). Kerdreux further teaches that “a button may also be arranged in the notch so as to be manipulated by the thumb” (¶ 0035), the notch being formed in a side face (¶ 0072). Kerdreux thus already teaches a wheel as one of its controls and already locates a thumb-operated control on the lateral face. Chou’s direction wheel is a single member that rolls, moves left and right, and clicks (¶¶ 0004, 0017), and Chou teaches it as a compact replacement for a “complex and bulky” conventional wheel structure (¶¶ 0003-0004). Providing Chou’s wheel at the side-face location Kerdreux already designates for a thumb control substitutes one known thumb-operated control for another, and Chou’s wheel retains the click function of the button it replaces (¶ 0006). Applicant identifies no structural incompatibility with Kerdreux’s side face.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p.16) that the rejection relies on hindsight and a series of selections from multiple references. Reliance on a number of references is not, in itself, evidence of nonobviousness. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Each modification is tied to a teaching in the record: Kerdreux’s disclosure of ball, wheel and button as alternative or cumulative pointer means (¶¶ 0047, 0076) and its thumb-operated side-face control (¶ 0035); Pflughaupt’s avionics cursor controller with a scroll ring “positioned around trackball 98” (col. 2, ll. 20-26); Chou’s compact multi-direction wheel (¶¶ 0003-0004); and Fukushima’s rotary operating member “exposed on the side of enclosure 10” (¶ 0090). The rationale is drawn from these teachings, not from applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2145(X)(A).
Applicant argues (Remarks, p.16) that the claimed arrangement allows the palm to remain supported and minimizes hand movement in a vibration environment. This feature is not recited in claim 1, and arguments directed to limitations not appearing in the claims are not persuasive. See MPEP 2145(VI) and In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Kerdreux teaches the same advantage: the palm is pressed on the top portion 25” with the thumb in the notch so that “even if the aircraft is subjected to high levels of vibration or to sudden movements, the user's hand is held in the appropriate position relative to the pointer means,” and “the individual can then easily move the pointer means with the fingers other than the thumb” (¶¶ 0033, 0083).
Applicant arguments regarding claims 2-11, 13 and 14 rest solely on the arguments for claim 1 and are not persuasive for the same reasons.
New claim 20 recites substantially the same combination as claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds. New claim 19 is addressed in the rejection below.
Applicant’s remarks regarding finality are noted. Claim 1 is unamended and the rejection is maintained on the same grounds. New claims 19 and 20 were added by amendment, and their rejection is necessitated by that amendment. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Kerdreux; Christelle et al., US 20140353438 A1] in view of [Pflughaupt; Jaycob D., US 8902165 B1], [Chou; Chin-Wen, US 20070068788 A1] and further in view of [Fukushima, Yashuyuki et al., US 20030048252 A1].
Regarding claim 1:
Kerdreux discloses:
1. A control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] for controlling a display (30) [Kerdreux: Fig.2: display screen 5; ¶ 0022: “pointer means for controlling a cursor on at least one display screen”],
the control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] comprising a palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; 0073: “ the support 20 has a palm rest ... in front of the armrest 35”; ¶ 0074: top portion 25”], fixed relative to a structure [Kerdreux: ¶ 0062: reception face 19 with “a rim that can be fastened to a console by fastener means 16”; ¶ 0081: “ the base 15 of each interface is received in a housing in the console 2”],
the palm rest (1) Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; 0073: “ the support 20 has a palm rest ... in front of the armrest 35”; ¶ 0074: top portion 25”] being provided with:
a support face (11) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0074: front face 25 “top portion 25”“] configured to receive a palm of a hand of an operator [Kerdreux: ¶ 0083: “the individual presses the palm 102 of the hand on the top portion 25'' of the front face 25””];
two lateral faces (13, 14) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: a left side face 23 and a right side face 22: ¶ 0064: “the support 20 extends transversely between a left side face 23 and a right side face 22”] situated on either side of the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; ¶ 0064: “the support 20 extends transversely between a left side face 23 and a right side face 22”; ¶ 0073: “ the support 20 has a palm rest ... in front of the armrest 35”; ¶ 0074: palm-rest top portion 25”], one of the two lateral faces (13, 14) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0071: “the support 20 includes at least one notch 30 for receiving a user's thumb”; ¶ 0072: notch “formed in a side face” ] being reachable by a thumb of the hand resting on the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; ¶ 0071: “the support 20 includes at least one notch 30 for receiving a user's thumb”; ¶ 0083: “places the thumb in the notch 30”];
and a front face (12) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: front face 25; ¶ 0064 and 0074: “front face 25”] reachable by at least one other finger of the hand resting on the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; ¶ 0083: “The individual can then easily move the pointer means with the fingers other than the thumb”],
wherein the control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] comprises the following four controls (2-5) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown. In a variant or in addition, the pointer means may include a touch zone, a wheel, or indeed button-type selector means, for example”]:
at least one wheel (2) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “a wheel”]
at least one push-button (3) [Kerdreux: Fig.1:¶ 0047: “indeed selector means that may be activated by pressure from a user’s finger, such as a button”; ¶ 0076: “indeed button-type selector mean”; Examiner: Under BRI, Kerdreux’ s button-type selector is actuated by finger pressure and is therefore considered to be a type of push-button.];
a trackball (5) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”],
the trackball (5) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”] being able to rotate relative to the palm rest (1) about two complementary axes (AX5, AX6) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”; Examiner: A movable ball/ trackball is necessarily rotatable about two orthogonal axes to position a cursor.]
and a computer (9) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0063: “an electronic device for pointer means 40”; ¶ 0077: “The pointer means are connected to an electronic device arranged within the support or the base”] configured to generate control commands to control the display (30) [Kerdreux: Fig.2: display screen 5; ¶ 0078: “the electronic device generates an order that is transmitted to a display screen, e.g. for the purpose of moving a cursor”] according to the actions on the four controls (2-5) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown. In a variant or in addition, the pointer means may include a touch zone, a wheel, or indeed button-type selector means, for example”; ¶ 0078: “the electronic device generates an order that is transmitted to a display screen, e.g. for the purpose of moving a cursor”; Examiner: Command generation responsive to all four controls follows from incorporating the controls of Pflughaupt and Chou into Kerdreux electronic device.].
However, Kerdreux does not expressly disclose:
a rotary ring (4) able to rotate about a main axis (AX4) and positioned on the front face (12);
the trackball (5) arranged at the center of, and concentric with, the rotary ring (4) rotating about two complementary axes (AX5, AX6) distinct from main axis (AX4).
Pflughaupt discloses:
a rotary ring (4) [Pflughaupt: Figs.2-3: rotating scroll ring 106] able to rotate about a main axis (AX4) [Pflughaupt: Fig.2: Examiner: The ring 106 is rotatable about the ball’s or ring’s central axis] and positioned on the front face (12) [Pflughaupt: Fig.2: ring 106 exposed at the upper working face; Examiner: In combination, the ring is placed on the Kerdreux front face 25 where the point means already resides (Kerdreux: ¶ 0075)];
the trackball (5) [Pflughaupt: Figs.2-3: trackball 98] arranged at the center of, and concentric with, the rotary ring (4) [Pflughaupt: Figs.2-3: rotating scroll ring 106; (Column 2, Lines 20-21): “ a rotating scroll ring 106 positioned around trackball 98”; Examiner: As shown in Figs.2-3, the trackball 98 is centered inside the scroll ring 106.] rotating about two complementary axes (AX5, AX6) distinct from main axis (AX4) [Pflughaupt: Figs.2-3; (Column 2, Lines 14-16): “ Rotation of trackball 98 is translated into a cursor-positioning signal corresponding to X-Y motion of a cursor”; Examiner: The ball’s two X-Y axes are distinct from the single rotation axis of the scroll ring 106.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kerdreux’ s front-face movable ball as Pflughaupt’ s concentric scroll-ring around-trackball, to add scroll/zoom control to the ball’s pointer positioning in a single compact control. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to do so because both are analogues avionics cursor-control devices. The results would have been predictable: the ball continues to position the cursor (its function in Kerdreux) while the surrounding rings adds rotary scroll/zoom-screen-change input (its function in Pflughaupt), neither element’s operation being altered by the combination, so success was reasonably expected.
Furthermore, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt discloses:
the limitations as discussed above.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt does not expressly disclose:
the wheel (2) provided with at least three degrees of freedom, including at least one degree of freedom in rotation.
Chou discloses:
the wheel (2) [Chou: Fig.1: direction wheel 10] provided with at least three degrees of freedom, including at least one degree of freedom in rotation [Chou: ¶ 0017: “The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom which includes one-degree of rotational freedom R (for forward rolling and backward rolling operations) and two-degree of freedom M1 and M2 (for leftward moving and rightward moving, and click operations)”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combination’s wheel as Chou’s multi-degree-of-freedom direction wheel, to obtain additional input axes from a single thumb-operated member. A POSITA would have been motivated to do to expand the inputs available from one control. The results would have been predictable: the wheel provides rotation about its primary axis and movement about two further axes exactly as it does in Chou, performing the same function in the combination, so success was reasonably expected.
Furthermore, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Chou disclose:
the limitations as discussed above.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Chou does not expressly disclose:
the wheel (2) projecting from one lateral face among the two lateral faces (13, 14).
Fukushima discloses:
the wheel (2) [Fukushima: Fig.1: second operational input means 12 or a third operational input means 13 or 17] projecting from one lateral face among the two lateral faces (13, 14) [Fukushima: ¶ 0035: “A second operational input means 12 and a third operational input means 13 are provided on a side S of enclosure 10”; ¶ 0051: “Rotary operating member 17 is exposed on a side of enclosure 10”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate that wheel projecting from a lateral side face, as Fukushima positions operating members – including a rotary operating member (13) – on the side surface. A POSITA would have been motivated to place the thumb-operated wheel within thumb reach on the lateral face, consistent with the side-face notch 30 of Kerdreux. The result would have been predictable: the wheel remains fully operable from the side surface just as Fukushima’s rotary operating member (13) functions on the side surface, so success was reasonably expected.
Regarding claim 2:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Fukushima and discloses:
2. The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
wherein the wheel (2) includes the push-button (3), the wheel (2) having three degrees of freedom.
Chou discloses:
wherein the wheel (2) includes the push-button (3) [Chou: ¶ 0017: “The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom which includes one-degree of rotational freedom R (for forward rolling and backward rolling operations) and two-degree of freedom M1 and M2 (for leftward moving and rightward moving, and click operations)”; ¶ 0023: “When the direction wheel 10 is depressed, the elbow 53 is moved towards the second elastic reed 42 of the first electrode 21 to force the second elastic reed 42 in contact with the second electrode 22 (referring to FIG. 7), hence the first electrode 21 and the second electrode 22 are connected electrically to trigger the encoder 20 to generate a click signa”; Examiner: Chou’s direction wheel 10 is itself depressible to generate a click signal, so the wheel includes the push-button function.], the wheel (2) having three degrees of freedom [Chou: ¶ 0017: “The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wheel of the combination as Chou’s depressible direction wheel so that the wheel includes the push-button. A POSITA would have been motivated to consolidate the selection input into the wheel, reducing the number of separate controls on the support – a benefit in the confined cock setting of Kerdreux. The results would have been predictable: the wheel retains its three degrees of freedom and additionally generates a click signal on depression, exactly as in Chou, so success was reasonably expected.
Regarding claim 4:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima discloses:
4. The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1,
wherein the control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] comprises [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “a wheel”] and two push-buttons (3) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0035: “A button may also be arranged in the notch so as to be manipulated by the thumb”; ¶ 0072: “the support 20 has two notches formed respectively in the left and right side faces”; Examiner: A button arranged in each of the two notches yields the two push-buttons], the two lateral faces (13, 14) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0064: “a left side face 23 and a right side face 22”] each comprising (3) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0035: “A button may also be arranged in the notch so as to be manipulated by the thumb”; ¶ 0072: “the support 20 has two notches formed respectively in the left and right side faces”; Examiner: A button arranged in each of the two notches yields the two push-buttons].
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
two wheels (2), the two lateral faces (13, 14) each comprising one of the two wheels (2) [Examiner: claim 1 combination provides a single wheel (Chou: direction wheel 10) on one lateral face].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second wheel on the other lateral face, so that each of the two lateral faces comprises one wheel and one push-button. A POSITA would have been motivated to duplicate the wheel-and-button set because Kerdreux itself teaches the two-notch variant with a thumb-control station on each side face (¶ 0072), accommodating left- and right-handed operators pr a pilot and copilot on opposite sides of the console (¶ 0081). The mere duplication of a known control set has not patentable significance absent a new and unexpected result (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)), and the results would have been predictable: each lateral face carries an identically functioning wheel and push-button, so success was reasonably expected.
Regarding claim 11:
Kerdreux in view of Chou and Fukushima discloses:
11. The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1.
However, Kerdreux in view of Chou and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
wherein the controls are configured to move or modify an image displayed on the display (30), to move a pointer displayed on the display (30), to perform a selection on the display (30), or to perform a validation action.
Pflughaupt discloses:
wherein the controls are configured to move or modify an image displayed on the display (30), to move a pointer displayed on the display (30) [Pflughaupt: (Col. 2, Lines 14-17): “Rotation of trackball 98 is translated into a cursor-positioning signal corresponding to X-Y motion of a cursor on a display device 106 of a computer system”], to perform a selection on the display (30), or to perform a validation action [Examiner: Limitations recited in the alternative “or”. Thus, only one the alternatives is required to be taught by any one of the references.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controls of the combination to move a pointer displayed on the display, as taught by Pflughaupt. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so because translating trackball rotation into cursor X-Y motion is the established way to position a pointer on a display, and the trackball would predictably move the pointer exactly as in Pflughaupt, so success was reasonably expected.
Regarding claim 13:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima discloses:
13. A display system [Kerdreux: Fig.2: FIG. 1 shows a man-machine interface 10: display screen 5] comprising at least one display (30) [Kerdreux: Fig.2: display screen 5] displaying an image comprising a pointer and the control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1 [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”; ¶ 0078: “As a result of an individual moving the pointer means, the electronic device generates an order that is transmitted to a display screen, e.g. for the purpose of moving a cursor”].
Regarding claim 14:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima discloses:
14. A vehicle [Kerdreux ¶ 0079: “FIG. 2 shows a vehicle 1 of the invention”] comprising at least one display (30) [Kerdreux: Fig.2: display screen 5] displaying an image comprising a pointer and the control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1 [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”; ¶ 0078: “As a result of an individual moving the pointer means, the electronic device generates an order that is transmitted to a display screen, e.g. for the purpose of moving a cursor”].
Regarding claim 19:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima discloses:
19. (New) The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1, wherein the wheel (2) [Kerdreux: ¶ 0047: “a trackwheel type wheel”; ¶ 0076: “a wheel”; Examiner: Per the claim 1 combination, the wheel is Chou’s direction wheel 10 projecting from the side face of Kerdreux’s support 20.] is positioned to be manipulable by the thumb and an index finger of the hand [Kerdreux: ¶ 0035: “A button may also be arranged in the notch so as to be manipulated by the thumb”; ¶ 0072: “Each notch 30 is formed in a side face”; ¶ 0033: “The user can then manipulate the pointer means accurately with the fingers, e.g. with an index finger”; Examiner: Kerdreux teaches thumb manipulation of a control at the side-face notch and index-finger manipulation of the pointer means from the same hand position; the wheel of the claim 1 combination occupies that side-face location.] while the palm of the hand remains supported on the support face (11) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: top portion 25”; ¶ 0083: “ the individual presses the palm 102 of the hand on the top portion 25'' of the front face 25 and places the thumb in the notch 30. The individual can then easily move the pointer means with the fingers other than the thumb”; ¶ 0033: “Even if the aircraft is subjected to high levels of vibration or to sudden movements, the user's hand is held in the appropriate position relative to the pointer means”].
Regarding claim 20:
Kerdreux discloses:
20. (New) A control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] for controlling a display (30) [Kerdreux: Fig.2: display screen 5; ¶ 0022: “pointer means for controlling a cursor on at least one display screen”], the control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] comprising a palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; 0073: “ the support 20 has a palm rest ... in front of the armrest 35”; ¶ 0074: top portion 25”], fixed relative to a structure [Kerdreux: ¶ 0062: reception face 19 with “a rim that can be fastened to a console by fastener means 16”; ¶ 0081: “ the base 15 of each interface is received in a housing in the console 2”], the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; 0073: “ the support 20 has a palm rest ... in front of the armrest 35”; ¶ 0074: top portion 25”] comprising:
a support face (11) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0074: front face 25 “top portion 25”“] configured to support a palm of a hand of an operator [Kerdreux: ¶ 0083: “the individual presses the palm 102 of the hand on the top portion 25'' of the front face 25””];
a first lateral face (13) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: left side face 23; ¶ 0064: “the support 20 extends transversely between a left side face 23 and a right side face 22”] disposed on one first side of the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20] and a second lateral face (14) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: right side face 22; ¶ 0064: “the support 20 extends transversely between a left side face 23 and a right side face 22”] disposed on a second side of the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20], the first lateral face (13) being reachable by a thumb of the hand when the hand is resting on the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: ¶ 0071: “the support 20 includes at least one notch 30 for receiving a user's thumb”; ¶ 0072: “Each notch 30 is formed in a side face”; ¶ 0083: “places the thumb in the notch 30”]; and
a front face (12) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: front face 25; ¶ 0064 and 0074: “front face 25”] being reachable by another finger of the hand when the hand is resting on the palm rest (1) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: support 20; ¶ 0083: “The individual can then easily move the pointer means with the fingers other than the thumb”], the control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] comprising the following controls (2-5) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown. In a variant or in addition, the pointer means may include a touch zone, a wheel, or indeed button-type selector means, for example”]:
a wheel (2) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “a wheel”]
a push-button (3) [Kerdreux: Fig.1:¶ 0047: “indeed selector means that may be activated by pressure from a user’s finger, such as a button”; ¶ 0076: “indeed button-type selector mean”; Examiner: Under BRI, Kerdreux’ s button-type selector is actuated by finger pressure and is therefore considered to be a type of push-button.];
a trackball (5) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”] (5) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”] rotatable relative to the palm rest (1) about two complementary axes (AX5, AX6) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown”; Examiner: A movable ball/ trackball is necessarily rotatable about two orthogonal axes to position a cursor.]
and a computer (9) [Kerdreux: Fig.1; ¶ 0063: “an electronic device for pointer means 40”; ¶ 0077: “The pointer means are connected to an electronic device arranged within the support or the base”] configured to generate control commands to control the display (30) [Kerdreux: Fig.2: display screen 5; ¶ 0078: “the electronic device generates an order that is transmitted to a display screen, e.g. for the purpose of moving a cursor”] according to the actions on the controls [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “ The pointer means may comprise a movable ball as in the example shown. In a variant or in addition, the pointer means may include a touch zone, a wheel, or indeed button-type selector means, for example”; ¶ 0078: “the electronic device generates an order that is transmitted to a display screen, e.g. for the purpose of moving a cursor”; Examiner: Command generation responsive to all four controls follows from incorporating the controls of Pflughaupt and Chou into Kerdreux electronic device.].
However, Kerdreux does not expressly disclose:
a rotary ring rotatable relative to the palm rest about a main axis, the rotary ring disposed on the front face;
a trackball within the rotary ring and concentric to the rotary ring, the trackball rotatable relative to the palm rest about two complementary axes distinct from the main axis.
Pflughaupt discloses:
a rotary ring (4) [Pflughaupt: Figs.2-3: rotating scroll ring 106] rotatable relative to the palm rest about a main axis [Pflughaupt: (Col.2, ll. 42-45): “Ring gear 107 and pinion gear 112 cooperate to translate rotary motion from scroll ring 106 to rotary motion of a sensor 114”; Examiner: The ring rotates about its own central axis relative to the housing.], the rotary ring (4) disposed on the front face (12) [Pflughaupt: Fig.2: scroll ring 106; (Col.2, ll. 27-28): “An upper portion 106a of scroll ring 106 extends above cover 94”; Examiner: The ring is exposed at the same working face as the trackball; in the combination that face is the bottom portion of the Kerdreux front face where the pointer means are arranged.];
a trackball (5) [Pflughaupt: Figs.2-3: trackball 98] within the rotary ring (4) and concentric to the rotary ring (4) [Pflughaupt: Figs.2-3: scroll ring 106 around trackball 98; (Column 2, Lines 20-21): “ a rotating scroll ring 106 positioned around trackball 98”; Examiner: As shown in Figs.2-3, the trackball 98 is centered inside the scroll ring 106.], the trackball (5) rotatable relative to the palm rest about two complementary axes distinct from the main axis [Pfughaupt: (Col. 2, ll. 14-17): “Rotation of trackball 98 is translated into a cursor-positioning signal corresponding to X-Y motion of a cursor on a display device 106 of a computer system”; Examiner: The ball’s two X-Y axes are distinct from the single rotation axis of the surrounding ring.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kerdreux’ s front-face movable ball as Pflughaupt’ s concentric scroll-ring around-trackball, to add scroll/zoom control to the ball’s pointer positioning in a single compact control. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to do so because both are analogues avionics cursor-control devices. The results would have been predictable: the ball continues to position the cursor (its function in Kerdreux) while the surrounding rings adds rotary scroll/zoom-screen-change input (its function in Pflughaupt), neither element’s operation being altered by the combination, so success was reasonably expected.
Furthermore, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt discloses:
the limitations as discussed above.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt does not expressly disclose:
the wheel having at least three degrees of freedom, including at least one degree of freedom in rotation, with respect to the palm rest.
Chou discloses
the wheel (2) [Chou: Fig.1: direction wheel 10] having at least three degrees of freedom, including at least one degree of freedom in rotation, with respect to the palm rest [Chou: ¶ 0017: “The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom which includes one-degree of rotational freedom R (for forward rolling and backward rolling operations) and two-degree of freedom M1 and M2 (for leftward moving and rightward moving, and click operations)”; Examiner: The wheel moves relative to the housing that carries it; in the combination that housing is the Kerdreux support].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combination’s wheel as Chou’s multi-degree-of-freedom direction wheel, to obtain additional input axes from a single thumb-operated member. A POSITA would have been motivated to do to expand the inputs available from one control. The results would have been predictable: the wheel provides rotation about its primary axis and movement about two further axes exactly as it does in Chou, performing the same function in the combination, so success was reasonably expected.
Furthermore, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Chou disclose:
the limitations as discussed above.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Chou does not expressly disclose:
the wheel projecting from one of the lateral faces among the two lateral faces.
Fukushima discloses:
the wheel (2) [Fukushima: Fig.1: second operational input means 12 or a third operational input means 13 or 17] projecting from one lateral face among the two lateral faces (13, 14) [Fukushima: ¶ 0035: “A second operational input means 12 and a third operational input means 13 are provided on a side S of enclosure 10”; ¶ 0051: “Rotary operating member 17 is exposed on a side of enclosure 10”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate that wheel projecting from a lateral side face, as Fukushima positions operating members – including a rotary operating member (13) – on the side surface. A POSITA would have been motivated to place the thumb-operated wheel within thumb reach on the lateral face, consistent with the side-face notch 30 of Kerdreux. The result would have been predictable: the wheel remains fully operable from the side surface just as Fukushima’s rotary operating member (13) functions on the side surface, so success was reasonably expected.
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Kerdreux; Christelle et al., US 20140353438 A1] in view of [Pflughaupt; Jaycob D., US 8902165 B1], [Chou; Chin-Wen, US 20070068788 A1], [Fukushima, Yashuyuki et al., US 20030048252 A1] and further in view of [Chion; James A. et al., US 20200125228 A1].
Regarding claim 3:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Fukushima and discloses:
3. The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
wherein the wheel (2) forms the push-button (3).
Chou discloses:
wherein the wheel (2) forms the push-button (3) [Chou: ¶ 0017: “The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom which includes one-degree of rotational freedom R (for forward rolling and backward rolling operations) and two-degree of freedom M1 and M2 (for leftward moving and rightward moving, and click operations)”; ¶ 0023: “When the direction wheel 10 is depressed, the elbow 53 is moved towards the second elastic reed 42 of the first electrode 21 to force the second elastic reed 42 in contact with the second electrode 22 (referring to FIG. 7), hence the first electrode 21 and the second electrode 22 are connected electrically to trigger the encoder 20 to generate a click signa”; Examiner: Chou’s direction wheel 10 is itself depressible to generate a click signal, so the wheel includes the push-button function.], the wheel (2) having three degrees of freedom [Chou: ¶ 0017: “The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wheel of the combination as Chou’s depressible direction wheel so that the wheel includes the push-button. A POSITA would have been motivated to consolidate the selection input into the wheel, reducing the number of separate controls on the support – a benefit in the confined cock setting of Kerdreux. The results would have been predictable: the wheel retains its three degrees of freedom and additionally generates a click signal on depression, exactly as in Chou, so success was reasonably expected.
Furthermore, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Cho and Fukushima discloses:
the limitations as discussed above.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Cho and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
the wheel (2) having four degrees of freedom, including one degree of rotational freedom and one degree of translational freedom along a primary axis allowing rotation of the wheel (2) on itself.
Chion discloses:
the wheel (2) having four degrees of freedom, including one degree of rotational freedom and one degree of translational freedom along a primary axis allowing rotation of the wheel (2) on itself [Chion: ¶ 0024: “The jog dial may be configured to rotate freely about an axis and at least partially move in a linear direction along a length of the axis”; ¶ 0026: “he user input device, or jog dial user interface device, may include at least one linear bearing and spring surrounding the rotational axis and defining a selection input line of travel (e.g., along a length of the rotational axis). The jog dial and/or the touchpad may be actuated, or depressed, in a direction along this input line of travel to provide a selection input to the jog dial user interface device, or other computing system, of a vehicle. For example, actuating the jog dial and/or the touchpad may contact a button or switch configured to provide a selection input”; ¶ 0083: “, the linear actuation input 808 may displace the jog dial 504, the touchpad 508, and/or the center shaft 520, a specific distance, HP, from a default position to an actuated, or input, position. The linear actuation input 808 may be provided in a direction along the center axis 518. In some embodiments, this type of linear actuation input 808 may correspond to a selection input that selects an icon, image, list element, application, or other visible object rendered to the display 256 of the display device 112”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the click actuation of Chou’s direction wheel as a translation along the wheel’s primary rotation axis, as taught by Chion’s axially depressible jog dial, thereby providing the wheel with four degrees of freedom: Chou’s rotational freedom R and movements M1 and M2, plus the axial press by which the wheel forms the push-button. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so because Chion teaches axial depression as a known selection-input arrangement for a rotatable control in a vehicle interface, like Kerdreux’s. The results would have been predictable: the wheel rotates about, and translates along, its primary axis to select as in Chion (Chion ¶ 0083), so success was reasonably expected.
Regarding claim 6:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima discloses:
6. The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1.
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
wherein at least one of the four controls (2-5) comprises a haptic system in response to any movement.
Chion discloses:
wherein at least one of the four controls (2-5) comprises a haptic system in response to any movement [Chion: ¶ 0033: “the jog dial user interface device may include a jog dial, a high-precision rotary encoder, and a haptic device configured to provide haptic feedback when the jog dial is rotated from one angular position to another. In some cases, the haptic feedback may be provided based on a user interface context, speed of rotation, and/or a position of the jog dial along 360 degrees. In one embodiment, the haptic feedback may be provided when the jog dial is rotated to a computer-determined, virtual, detent position”; ¶ 0036: “the virtual detents provided by the haptic device may cause a movement of a spun dial to be restricted (e.g., interrupting an energy of the jog dial spinning by vibrating the shaft upon which the jog dial spins)”; Examiner: Chion’s haptic device produces tactile feedback in response to the rotational movements of the rotary control.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one of the four controls of the combination – for example the wheel (2) or the rotary ring (4) – with a haptic system that responds to movement, as taught by Chion’s haptic device that provides a feedback when the dial is rotated. A POSITA would have been motivated to add such tactile feedback to confirm control inputs and convey detent/position information without requiring the operator to look at the control – particularly valuable in Kerdeux’s cockpit, where the operator’s visual attention is on the displays. The results would have been predictable: the control produces haptic feedback in response to its movement exactly as in Chion, so success was reasonably expected.
Regarding claim 10:
Kerdreux in view Chou and Fukushima discloses:
10. The control system (10) according to claim 1,wherein the wheel (2) has a primary axis allowing rotation of the wheel (2) on itself [Chou: ¶ 0017: “ The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom which includes one-degree of rotational freedom R (for forward rolling and backward rolling operations)”], (2)] about the two additional axes [Chou: ¶ 0018: “The electrodes are connected to an encoder 20. According to the movements of the direction wheel 10 (including forward rolling, backward rolling, leftward moving, rightward moving and clicking), a corresponding electrode (22, 23, 25, 27 or 28 as shown in the drawings) is connected to form a circuit to trigger the encoder 20 to generate a corresponding signal”; Examiner: The electrodes are switches that detect the wheel’s leftward/rightward movements (M1, M2) about the two additional axes.],
However, Chou does not expressly disclose:
the wheel (2) comprising a first code wheel about the primary axes;
the trackball (5) comprising optical sensors for detecting movements of the trackball (5) about the two complementary axes (AX5, AX6);
and the rotary ring (4) having a second code wheel (2) about the main axis (AX4).
Pflughaupt discloses:
the trackball (5) comprising optical sensors for detecting movements of the trackball (5) about the two complementary axes (AX5, AX6) [Pflughaupt: Fig.2: trackball 98; (Col. 1, Lines 10-14): “an optical sensor and a light emitting diode are configured to convert reflected light into electrical signals. The electrical signals are encoded into information that a computer can use, such as cursor X-Y position data or scrolling direction and distance”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the movement of the trackball of the combination using optical sensors, as taught by Pflughaupt, for the reasons set forth in the claim 1 rejection (incorporated herein): the optical sensor and light emitting diode predictably convert the trackball’s rotation into X-Y position data exactly as in Pflughaupt, so success was reasonably expected.
Furthermore, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou, and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
the wheel (2) comprising a first code wheel about the primary axis;
and the rotary ring (4) having a second code wheel about the main axis.
Chion discloses:
the wheel (2) comprising a first code wheel about the primary axis [Chion: ¶ 0034: “This resolution may be achieved via a rotary encoder reading a rotation of the dial (e.g., via a rotary encoder disk or wheel, etc.). In one embodiment, the rotary encoder may comprise an optical sensor reading a rotary scale associated with a code wheel.”; Examiner: The code wheel read by an optical sensor detects rotation of the rotatable control about its axis, applicable both to the wheel about its primary axis and to the rotary ring];
and the rotary ring (4) having a second code wheel about the main axis.
[Chion: ¶ 0034: “This resolution may be achieved via a rotary encoder reading a rotation of the dial (e.g., via a rotary encoder disk or wheel, etc.). In one embodiment, the rotary encoder may comprise an optical sensor reading a rotary scale associated with a code wheel.”; Examiner: The code wheel read by an optical sensor detects rotation of the rotatable control about its axis, applicable both to the wheel about its primary axis and to the rotary ring];
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the rotation of the wheel about its primary axis and the rotation of the rotary ring about the main axis using a respective code wheel, as taught by Chion. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so because an optical code-wheel encoder is a known, high-resolution means of sensing rotary position – Chion provides 200 steps per revolution (¶ 0034) – improving the precision of the wheel’s and ring’s rotational inputs over a gear-and-contact arrangement. The results would have been predictable: each code wheel reports the angular position of its respective control exactly as in Chion, so success was reasonably expected.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Kerdreux; Christelle et al., US 20140353438 A1] in view of [Pflughaupt; Jaycob D., US 8902165 B1], [Chou; Chin-Wen, US 20070068788 A1], [Fukushima, Yashuyuki et al., US 20030048252 A1] and further in view of [Adams; Aditha M. et al., US 6031518 A].
Regarding claim 5:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima discloses:
5. The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 1, wherein the lateral face comprising the wheel (2) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: ¶ 0076: “a wheel”; ¶ 0072: notch 30 in side face; Chou: ¶ 0017: direction wheel 10; Examiner: Per the claim 1 combination, the wheel projects from a lateral face.]
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
the lateral face comprising the wheel (2) comprises a lateral bulge (6) configured to guide the thumb and an index finger of the hand towards the wheel (2).
Adams discloses:
the lateral face comprising the wheel (2) comprises a lateral bulge (6) configured to guide the thumb and an index finger of the hand towards the wheel (2) [Adams: (Column 8, Lines 63-66): “The remaining portion of the palm, including the thenar eminence and palm gutter, are filled with the continuous convex curve of the upper surface 86 in this region”; (Column 8, Lines 63-66): “The contiguous recesses, therefore, facilitate the abduction and adduction of the index finger as it moves between the trackball and the wheel or the middle finger as it moves between the trackball and the wheel, as the user prefers”; Examiner: Adam’s convex (bulging) surface supports the thenar eminence – the part the palm to which the thumb attaches – while its adjoining contour guides the finger’s movement on t the wheel.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lateral face carrying the wheel of the combination with a bulge as taught by Adams – a convex surface supporting the thenar eminence with contours guiding the fingers to the wheel. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Adam’s known ergonomic contouring at the wheel’s lateral-face location to ease finger access and steady grip, particularly desirable in Kerdreux’s vibration-prone cockpit. The results would have been predictable: the bulge supports the base of the thumb and guides the thumb and index finger to the wheel exactly as Adam’s contour guides fingers to its wheel, so success was reasonably expected; and a change in the position or shape of such a contour is ordinarily an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Kerdreux; Christelle et al., US 20140353438 A1] in view of [Pflughaupt; Jaycob D., US 8902165 B1], [Chou; Chin-Wen, US 20070068788 A1], [Fukushima, Yashuyuki et al., US 20030048252 A1], [Chion; James A. et al., US 20200125228 A1] and further in view of [Koo, James Y., US 20050110759 A1].
Regarding claim 7:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou, Fukushima and Chion discloses:
7. The control system (10) [Kerdreux: Fig.1: man-machine interface 10] according to claim 6, wherein the wheel (2) comprises a primary axis allowing rotation of the wheel (2) on itself [Chou: ¶ 0017: “The direction wheel 10 has three-degree-of-freedom which includes one-degree of rotational freedom R (for forward rolling and backward rolling operations) “]
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou, Fukushima and Chion does not expressly disclose:
and comprises incrementation notches about the primary axis, mechanically marking a rotation of the wheel (2) between two of the incrementation notches.
Koo discloses:
and comprises incrementation notches about the primary axis, mechanically marking a rotation of the wheel (2) between two of the incrementation notches [Koo: ¶ 0008: “The present invention improves upon existing scroll wheel designs by providing a single component that rotatably supports the scroll wheel, … Formed on a circumferential surface of the scroll wheel are regularly spaced detents or other structures forming regularly spaced regions of alternating height. Located on an end of the follower arm is a follower which rests within the detents. As the scroll wheel rotates and the follower is pushed out of a detent, the follower arm biases the follower radially into the surface on which the detents are located”; Examiner: The regularly spaced detents on the wheel’s circumferential surface are incrementation notches about the wheel’s rotation axis, and the follower being pushed out of one detent and biased towards the next as the wheel rotates mechanically marks a rotation between two notches].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wheel of the combination with mechanical detent notches about its rotation axis, as taught by Koo (¶ 0008). A POSITA would have been motivated to do so to give tactile feedback, prevent inadvertent rotation, and index rotation into discrete uniform increments, which is especially useful in Kerdreux’s vibration-prone cockpit. The results would have been predictable: the wheel’s rotation is mechanically marked in discrete steps between adjacent notches exactly as in Koo, so success was reasonably expected.
Regarding claim 8:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou, Fukushima and Chion discloses:
8. The control system (10) according to claim 6, herein the rotary ring (4) comprises incrementation notches about the main axis (AX4) [Pflughaupt: Fig.2: scroll ring 106].
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou, Fukushima and Chion does not expressly disclose:
mechanically marking a rotation of the rotary ring (4) between two of the incrementation notches.
Koo discloses:
mechanically marking a rotation of the rotary ring (4) between two of the incrementation notches [Koo: ¶ 0008: “The present invention improves upon existing scroll wheel designs by providing a single component that rotatably supports the scroll wheel, … Formed on a circumferential surface of the scroll wheel are regularly spaced detents or other structures forming regularly spaced regions of alternating height. Located on an end of the follower arm is a follower which rests within the detents. As the scroll wheel rotates and the follower is pushed out of a detent, the follower arm biases the follower radially into the surface on which the detents are located”; Examiner: The regularly spaced detents on the wheel’s circumferential surface are incrementation notches about the wheel’s rotation axis, and the follower being pushed out of one detent and biased towards the next as the wheel rotates mechanically marks a rotation between two notches].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotary ring of the combination with mechanical detent notches about the main axis, as taught by Koo (¶ 0008). A POSITA would have been motivated to do so to give tactile feedback, prevent inadvertent rotation, and index rotation into discrete uniform increments, which is especially useful in Kerdreux’s vibration-prone cockpit. The results would have been predictable: the ring’s rotation is mechanically marked in discrete steps between adjacent notches exactly as in Koo, so success was reasonably expected.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Kerdreux; Christelle et al., US 20140353438 A1] in view of [Pflughaupt; Jaycob D., US 8902165 B1], [Chou; Chin-Wen, US 20070068788 A1], [Fukushima, Yashuyuki et al., US 20030048252 A1] and further in view of [Cheng; Yu-Chih, US 20100214220 A1].
Regarding claim 9:
Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima discloses:
9. The control system (10) according to claim 1, wherein the wheel (2) comprises elastic return elements to return it to an initial position [Chou: ¶ 0019: “When the direction wheel 10 is still, the movable contact 30 bounces back elastically to a normal position without connecting the fifth electrode 25 or the seventh electrode 27 (referring to FIG. 4).”].
However, Kerdreux in view of Pflughaupt, Chou and Fukushima does not expressly disclose:
wherein the push-button (3) comprises elastic return elements to return it to an initial position.
Cheng discloses:
wherein the push-button (3) comprises elastic return elements to return it to an initial position [Cheng: ¶ 0040: “Until the external force for tilting the scroll wheel 21 toward the left side is eliminated, the compressed second elastic element 26 will be restored such that the wheel swing member 22 is returned to its original position (as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3)”; ¶ 0041: “the scroll wheel 21 is pressed down (in the direction D), the depressing force will move the wheel swing member 22 downwardly. As the wheel swing member 22 is moved downwardly, the first extension arm 224 and the second extension arm 225 at bilateral sides of the wheel swing member 22 are synchronously moved downwardly. At the same time, the first extension arm 224 and the second extension arm 225 are respectively sustained against the first elastic element 25 and the second elastic element 26. As such, the first extension arm 224 and the second extension arm 225 are in the compressed state. In addition, as the wheel swing member 22 is moved downwardly toward the base 23, the wheel switch 243 is touched by the swing member triggering part 227 of the wheel swing member 22, thereby issuing a switch button signal to the circuit board 24 and enabling the wheel button function of the tilt wheel mouse 2 (see FIG. 2 and FIG. 5”; ¶ 0042: “the first elastic element and the second elastic element are arranged at bilateral sides of the wheel swing member, the touch feel of operating the scroll wheel becomes humanized and more natural. Moreover, the uses of the first elastic element and the second elastic element can facilitate returning the scroll wheel to its original position”; Examiner: The elastic elements return both the wheel’s tilt/scroll movement and wheel’s press-down (push-button) movement to their original positions].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wheel and the push-button of the combination with elastic return elements, as taught by Cheng. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so in order for each control to reset to its initial position after actuation, readying it for the next input. The results would have been predictable: the wheel and the push-button each return under elastic bias exactly as in Cheng, so success was reasonably expected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12:
The prior art does not teach or suggest either singularly or in combination the at least claimed “wherein the computer is configured to generate control commands transmitted to the display in response to control signals transmitted by the controls in order to perform: a movement of a pointer displayed on the display as a function of a movement of the trackball along the two complementary axes; a selection or validation action when the push-button is pressed; a modification of a display scale of an image displayed on the display as a function of a rotation of the wheel about a primary axis allowing a rotation of the wheel on itself; a movement of the image as a function of a movement of the wheel along two additional axes distinct from the primary axis; and a rotation of the image as a function of a rotation of the rotary ring about the main axis”, in combination with the other recited claim features.
Regarding claim 15:
The prior art does not teach or suggest either singularly or in combination the at least claimed “the method comprising the following steps carried out as a function of the actions on the at least one wheel, the push- button, the rotary ring and the trackball of the control system: a movement of a pointer displayed on the displays a function of a movement of the trackball along the two complementary axes; a selection or validation action when the push-button is pressed; a modification of a display scale of an image displayed on the display as a function of a rotation of the wheel about a primary axis allowing a rotation of the wheel on itself; a movement of the image as a function of a movement of the wheel along two additional axes distinct from the primary axis; and a rotation of the image as a function of a rotation of the rotary ring about the main axis”, in combination with the other recited claim features.
Regarding claims 16-18:
Claims 16-18 depend on claim 15 and are found allowable for at least the same reason as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Koosha Sharifi-Tafreshi whose telephone number is (571)270-5897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM to 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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/KOOSHA SHARIFI-TAFRESHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
