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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendments, filed March 30, 2026 are respectfully acknowledged and have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed March 30, 2026 and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 6, 12, and 13 are amended. Claim 19 is added.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
The amendments to Claims 6 and 13 addressing minor informalities are respectfully acknowledged, and the corresponding objections to Claims 6 and 13 are withdrawn.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20090090568 A1) in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20080092087 A1, hereinafter “Brown”).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Min teaches a light-emitting user input device for providing user input to
a display system including a wearable display device (par 0065 Fig 4 digital device control apparatus comprises a plurality of touch-sensitive switches separated from each other at a predetermined interval and light-emitting devices corresponding to the touch-sensitive switches, to provide input to a digital device - Min suggests the digital device may be, e.g., an MP3 player par 0036; such were well-known to be wearable at the time of the effective filing of the invention, e.g. Sandisk Clip Sport Plus MP3 Player at least at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPrnBTFIxhY ), the light-emitting user input device comprising:
a plurality of interactable regions configured to receive user inputs (par 0065 Fig 4 410 plurality of interactable regions including touch-sensitive switches 410 configured to receive user touch inputs);
a light-emitting assembly comprising a light guide (par 0065 Fig 4 light-emitting assembly comprising a circular assemblage of LEDs 420; par 0094 the LED assembly may comprise a light guide comprising a diffuser, refractor or reflector); and
a hardware processor communicatively coupled to the plurality of interactable regions and the light-emitting assembly (paras 0063, 0099 at least Fig 9 control unit 930 shown coupled to the plurality of interactable regions and the light-emitting assembly), the hardware processor programmed to:
determine an application currently being presented by the display system through the wearable display device (paras 0005, 0033, 0044, 0103 as the input device function is dependent on the application, determination of the application is necessarily performed in use of the input device);
determine a type of user input that is supported by the light-emitting user input device and that is usable to provide commands to the application using at least one of the plurality of interactable regions (paras 0050, 0120 e.g. identify context comprising mode and determine supported touch mode, i.e. control of screen object scrolling or moving a pointer object; clockwise scroll is initiated by pressing finger at starting point on sensor 410, Fig 8 811; par 0044 correspondence between the touch-sensitive switches and the light-emitting devices, i.e. the type of user input that is supported, may vary depending on the application);
based on determining that the application currently being presented by the display system is a first application, instruct the light-emitting assembly to illuminate a first light pattern that indicates that the at least one of the plurality of interactable regions is usable to enter a first type of user input to provide commands to the first application (par 0092 light LED 821 brightly, par 0094 presented in diffuse manner; paras 0050, 0120 context comprising mode B and clockwise, receive scrolling finger input across 812, 813 points on sensor 410, Fig 8, then par 0092, present LEDs 823 most bright, 822 less bright, 821 least bright, which provides illumination of a light pattern that indicates the type of user input that is usable to provide commands to the application, namely at least scrolling finger input across 812, 813 points on sensor 410).
However, Min appears not to expressly teach
based on determining that the application currently being presented by the display system is a second application that is different than the first application, instruct the light-emitting assembly to illuminate a second light pattern that is different than the first light pattern and that indicates that the at least one of the plurality of interactable regions is usable to enter a second type of user input to provide commands to the second application, wherein the second type of user input is different than the first type of user input.
Brown teaches a light-emitting user input device for providing user input (par 0074 Fig 1 display keyboard 40) configured to
determine a type of user input that is supported by the light-emitting user input device and that is usable to provide commands to the application using at least one of the plurality of interactable regions (par 0155 Fig 31 e.g. where the software application is Microsoft Word, a display data entry unit API detects it is Word, determines a type of user input that is supported by Word, and causes a Word specific set of images to be displayed on the display keys 44 of the display keyboard 40 and causes a key press of any of these display keys 44 to execute a Word type function or make a selection corresponding to the image displayed on the particular key 44 that was pressed);
based on determining that the application currently being presented by the display system is a first application, instruct the light-emitting assembly to illuminate a first light pattern that indicates that the at least one of the plurality of interactable regions is usable to enter a first type of user input to provide commands to the first application (par 0155 Fig 31 e.g. where the software application is Microsoft Word, a display data entry unit API detects it is Word, determines a type of user input that is supported by Word, and causes a Word specific set of images [a first light pattern on the light-emitting assembly display keys 44] to be displayed on the display keys 44 of the display keyboard 40 and indicating that the interactable region is usable to cause a key press of any of these at least one of the plurality of interactable regions/display keys 44 to execute a first Word type user input/function or make a selection corresponding to the image displayed on the particular key 44 that was pressed); and
based on determining that the application currently being presented by the display system is a second application that is different than the first application, instruct the light-emitting assembly to illuminate a second light pattern that is different than the first light pattern and that indicates that the at least one of the plurality of interactable regions is usable to enter a second type of user input to provide commands to the second application (par 0156 Fig 31 load a second game application different than the first Word application and the same API detects which game application has been loaded and causes a new set of key images to automatically load [a second light pattern on the light-emitting assembly display keys 44 different than the first light pattern] of the display keys 44 of the display keyboard 40; and indicating that the interactable region is usable to cause a key press of any of these at least one of the plurality of interactable regions/display keys 44 to execute a second game type user input /command entry to provide commands to the second game application), wherein the second type of user input is different than the first type of user input (par 0156 Fig 31 second game type command entry is different from first Word type user input/command entry).
Min and Brown are analogous art as they each pertain to light-emitting user input devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting user input device of Min with the inclusion of the light pattern indications of first and second input types of Brown. The motivation would have been in order to provide monitoring focus as it pertains to the graphical user interface of the software application or device to which the display data entry unit is linked and changing one or more display key images and corresponding functions based on changes in program focus (Brown par 0156).
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 1, wherein the light guide is touch sensitive to receive user input (Min par 0074 Fig 5 each light-emitting device 520 surrounds its corresponding touch-sensitive switch 510; par 0094 the LED assembly may comprise a light guide comprising a diffuser, refractor or reflector; as such a touch on the light guide at a particular touch-sensitive switch 510 is equivalent to the light guide being touch sensitive at least to receive user input at the light guide position of a switch).
Regarding Claim 6 (Currently Amended), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 1, wherein the light pattern indicates that at least one of the plurality of interactable regions is usable as a d-pad (Min par 0095 Fig 7 all of the light-emitting devices may blink while a start-up operation is being performed; par 0086 in the case of the switch/LED assembly arrangement of Fig 7, such would indicate the plurality of interactable regions is usable as a d-pad).
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 1, wherein the light pattern includes at least two arcs (Min par 0031 the user circularly swiping the touch switches, e.g. a sequential four switches 811-814, may produce, paras 0088-0092 Fig 8, a light pattern including at least two arcs, namely e.g. the arc from LED 821-823, and e.g. the arc from LED 822-824).
Regarding Claim 9 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 7, wherein the light pattern further includes an increase, over time, of an arc length of at least one of the arcs (Min par 0092 Fig 8 the arc length of the pattern of lit LEDs will increase according to e.g. a user’s visually trace his/her own circular swipe touch operation, from the initial touch to a touch along the swiping touch path).
Regarding Claim 10 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 9. However, Min appears not to expressly teach wherein the arc length of at least one of the arcs is increased from approximately 0.25π to approximately 0.75π.
Min teaches that by varying brightness of the relevant light-emitting devices [and at least portions of the arc in which they are contained] according to the time lapse from the last touch of each corresponding switch, a user may visually trace his/her own touch operation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the visual display of the user touch path trace by a lengthening arc of lit LEDs of light-emitting user input device of Min by adjusting the swiping speed and LED fade amount per time lapsed to provide one or more arcs of lit LEDs which may lengthen from approximately 0.25π to approximately 0.75π. The motivation would have been in order to provide an afterimage-type visual display of the user arcing touch path trace in the case where the user’s path continues from a distance travelled of approximately 0.25π to approximately 0.75π.
Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 7, wherein the light pattern further includes a change, over time, of a brightness of at least one of the arcs (Min par 0092 Fig 8 light-emitting device 823 [and each other LED position touched in turn] emits a bright light when a touch has occurred recently on the corresponding touch-sensitive switch 813, whereas the light-emitting device 821 emits a dim light when a long time has elapsed from the last touch on the corresponding touch-sensitive switch 811. As described above, by varying brightness of the relevant light-emitting devices [and at least portions of the arc in which they are contained] according to the time lapse from the last touch, a user may visually trace his/her own touch operation).
Claim 12 presents the limitations of Claim 1 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 12 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 13 presents the limitations of Claim 6 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 13 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 6, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14 presents the limitations of Claim 7 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 14 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 7, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16 presents the limitations of Claim 9 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 16 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 9, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17 presents the limitations of Claim 10 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 17 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 10, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 18 presents the limitations of Claim 11 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 18 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19 presents the limitations of Claim 1 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 19 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20090090568 A1) in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20080092087 A1, hereinafter “Brown”) and further in view of Li (U.S. Patent Application 20160062489 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 1. However, Min as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein the light guide at least partly surrounds at least one of the plurality of interactable regions.
Li teaches a similar arrangement wherein the light guide at least partly surrounds at least one of the plurality of interactable regions (par 0078 Fig 5 light 502 has a ring shape that outlines and surrounds the edge of the interactable regions of thumb button 105, and the light emitted by the LEDs may have different colors, and/or may be capable of illuminating different portions of the [light guide] surface of light 502).
Min Brown and Li are analogous art as they each pertain to light-emitting user input devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting user input device of Min/ Brown with the inclusion of the illuminable surface surrounding the interactable regions of Li. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the light 502 may light up in various manners indicating the operation mode and/or status of the controller 100 (Min par 0078).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 1. However, Min as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein the light guide is substantially circular.
Li teaches a similar arrangement wherein the light guide is substantially circular (par 0078 Fig 5 light 502 has a ring shape that outlines and surrounds the edge of the interactable regions of thumb button 105, and the light emitted by the LEDs may have different colors, and/or may be capable of illuminating different portions of the [light guide] surface of ring light 502).
Min Brown and Li are analogous art as they each pertain to light-emitting user input devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting user input device of Min/ Brown with the inclusion of the illuminable ring surface surrounding the interactable regions of Li. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the light 502 may light up in various manners indicating the operation mode and/or status of the controller 100 (Min par 0078).
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 1. However, Min as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein the plurality of interactable regions are configured to receive user inputs that comprise at least one of a swipe, a tap, a press, or a touch gesture.
Li teaches wherein the plurality of interactable regions are configured to receive user inputs that comprise at least one of a swipe, a tap, a press, or a touch gesture (paras 0144-0152 Figs 10-15,18 the plurality of interactable regions are configured to receive user inputs that comprise at least swipes and taps).
Min Brown and Li are analogous art as they each pertain to light-emitting user input devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting user input device of Min/ Brown with the inclusion of the interactable region input types of Li. The motivation would have been in order to provide that controller 100 may be used to e.g. control the display of the multimedia content in the media control mode (Min par 0139).
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Min as modified teaches the light-emitting user input device of claim 7. However, Min as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein the at least two arcs are of different colors.
Li teaches the light emitted by the light 502 may be capable of illuminating different portions in different colors simultaneously (par 0078 Fig 5 the light emitted by the light 502 may be capable of illuminating different portions in different colors simultaneously).
Min Brown and Li are analogous art as they each pertain to light-emitting user input devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting user input device wherein the light pattern includes at least two arcs of Min/ Brown with the inclusion of the illuminating different portions in different colors simultaneously of Li. The motivation would have been in order to provide a light that lights up in different manners for indicating different types of information (Min par 0008).
Claim 15 presents the limitations of Claim 8 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 15 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 8, mutatis mutandis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 12, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As such the rejections of Claims 1, 12, and 19 are maintained, as are those of claims dependent on Claims 1, 12, and 19.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p 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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624