DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYATAKE et al (2021/0008459) (herein “MIYATAKE”) in view of Greenwald, Will “Anbernic RG351P Review” PCMAG, 14 January 2021; https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/anbernic-rg351p. (herein “Greenwald”). In regards to claim 1, MIYATAKE teaches a portable game device comprising: a front surface; a back surface provided at an opposite side from the front surface; a top surface, bottom surface, left surface, and right surface provided between the front surface and the back surface so as to connect them (See; Figs. 1 and 3), a display positioned at the front surface user-operable control parts positioned at the front surface at both of left and right sides of the display (See; Fig. 1 for a device having a front surface containing a display 12 and user input parts 32, 33, 52-56 positioned to the left and right of the display), an user-operable power control part positioned at the top surface (See; Figs. 2 and 3 for a power button 28 on a top surface), and an user-operable home menu control part (See; Fig. 1 for Home Button 58). MIYATAKE fails to explicitly teach a user-operable home menu control part positioned at the bottom surface. However, Greenwald teaches a user-operable home menu control part positioned at the bottom surface (See; the second image of the device on the webpage under “Solid Shell” which shows a RESET button, located on the bottom surface of the device which is used to reset / restart the device, where it is well known that when restarting a device it may return to the home screen). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the placement of the home button in MIYATAKE to a bottom surface such as in Greenwald because the art suggests a finite number of predictable positions and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result. In regards to claim 2, MIYATAKE teaches wherein the user-operable power control part is provided at the top surface at a position offset to one side from a center in the left-right direction (See; Figs. 2 and 3). MIYATAKE fails to explicitly teach the user-operable home menu control part is provided at the bottom surface at a center in the left-right direction. However, Greenwald teaches a user-operable home menu control part positioned at the bottom surface near the center in the left-right direction (See; the second image of the device on the webpage under “Solid Shell” which shows a RESET button, located on the bottom surface of the device which is used to reset / restart the device, where it is well known that when restarting a device it may returns to the home screen). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the placement of the home button in MIYATAKE to a center bottom surface because the art suggests a finite number of predictable positions and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result.
In regards to claim 7, MIYATAKE teaches wherein the user-operable power control part is provided at the top surface at a position offset to one side from a center in the left-right direction (See; Figs. 2 and 3 for power button 28), and the top surface is provided with a user-operable volume control part for adjusting a sound volume of the portable game device at further See; Figs 2 and 3 for volume control 29). MIYATAKE fails to explicitly teach the top surface is provided with a user-operable volume control part for adjusting a sound volume of the portable game device at further the one side of the user-operable power control part. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the placement of the power and volume buttons in MIYATAKE because the art suggests a finite number of predictable positions and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result.
In regards to claim 8, MIYATAKE teaches wherein an upper-side user-operable control part is further provided at the top surface, and the upper-side user-operable control part is arranged at further outside from the user-operable volume control part in the left-right direction (See; Figs. 2 and 3 for ZL button 39 or L button 38).
In regards to claim 9, MIYATAKE teaches wherein user-operable control parts, each of which is configured to make the portable game device perform each predetermined function regardless of a game application being run by the portable game device, are provided only at the top surface and the bottom surface (See; Figs. 2 and 3 for a power button 28 and volume buttons 29 on the top surface). Further, Greenwald teaches a user-operable home menu control part positioned at the bottom surface (See; the second image of the device on the webpage under “Solid Shell” which shows a RESET button, located on the bottom surface of the device which is used to reset / restart the device, where it is well known that when restarting a device it may returns to the home screen). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the placement of the home button in MIYATAKE to a center bottom surface because the art suggests a finite number of predictable positions and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYATAKE et al (2021/0008459) (herein “MIYATAKE”) in view of Greenwald, Will “Anbernic RG351P Review” PCMAG, 14 January 2021; https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/anbernic-rg351p. (herein “Greenwald”) and further in view of OKAMURA et al (2017/0354867) (herein “OKAMURA”) In regards to claim 3, Greenwald teaches further comprising: an opening positioned at least at one side of the user-operable home menu control part in the left-right direction and passing through a side wall defining the bottom surface (See; the second image of the device on the webpage under “Solid Shell” where there are speaker openings to the right of the reset button). Greenwald fails to explicitly teach a user-operable screen image capturing control part positioned at further the one side from the opening in the left-right direction. However, OKAMURA teaches a user-operable screen image capturing control part (See; Fig. 2 and p[0083]for a game controller with a capture button 3c for capturing an image displayed on the display). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify MIYATAKE to have a user-operable screen image capturing control part such as in OKAMURA as screen capturing and screen capture buttons are common in the art and would increase user satisfaction in the device to have a button with said feature. OKAMURA fails to explicitly teach the user-operable screen image capturing control part positioned at further the one side from the opening in the left-right direction. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination to place the user-operable screen image capturing control part positioned at further the one side from the opening in the left-right direction because the art suggests a finite number of predictable positions and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result.
In regards to claim 4, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein an operation surface of the user-operable home menu control part is larger than an operation surface of the user-operable screen image capturing control part. However, the Examiner contends that the size of any given button in relation to another button is a mere design choice based on the needs of the game controller. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination’s button sizes as there are a finite number of predictable sizes and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result.
In regards to claim 5, Greenwald teaches wherein the openings are provided respectively at both sides of the user-operable home menu control part in the left-right direction (See; the second image of the device on the webpage under “Solid Shell” where there are speaker openings to the left and right of the reset button) and user-operable control parts are not provided at further the other side from the opening at the other side of the user-operable home menu control part (See; the second image of the device on the webpage under “Solid Shell” where there are no additional user-operable control parts provided near the openings). The combination fails to explicitly teach the user-operable screen image capturing control part is provided at further the one side from the opening at the one side from the user-operable home menu control part in the left-right direction. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination to position the user-operable screen image capturing control part to be further the one side from the opening at the one side from the user-operable home menu control part in the left-right direction because the art suggests a finite number of predictable positions and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result.
In regards to claim 6, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the user-operable screen image capturing control part is provided at an opposite side from a side where the user-operable power control part is provided with respect to the center of the portable game device in the left- right direction. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination to have the user-operable screen image capturing control part be provided at an opposite side from a side where the user-operable power control part is provided with respect to the center of the portable game device in the left- right direction because the art suggests a finite number of predictable positions and a finite number of universal functions “power, sleep, home, etc.” for buttons on a portable gaming device and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights