DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of preliminary amendment filed 28 October 2025 in which claim 1 – 14 are cancelled and claims 15 – 34 are newly added. Claims 15 – 34 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 18 – 23, 27 – 29, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Latta et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0328763 A1), hereafter Latta.
Regarding claim 15:
Latta discloses a computer-implemented method (Latta Figure 5A [0065]) comprising:
obtaining, for each of a plurality of sensors configured to monitor a respective type of input, corresponding input data characterizing the respective type of input monitored by the sensor (Latta [0068] plurality of sensor inputs obtained based on ability to provide sensing information during a period of time);
determining a respective usage level of each sensor based on the corresponding input data characterizing the respective type of input (Latta [0068] determining of unplugging the device determines a level of usage. A plugged device has a usage level greater than 0. An unplugged device has 0 level of usage);
determining one or more modifications to operations performed by one or more sensors based on the respective usage level of each sensor (Latta Figure 5A 510 – determining if sensors is to be removed/added. When a sensor is removed for example, the operation is modified as it will no longer function); and
adjusting operations performed by the one or more sensors based on the one or more modifications (Latta Figure 5A 510 – adjusting operations is performed when sensor is removed. Operation is adjusted by removing the sensor since operation is stopped).
Regarding claim 18:
Latta discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises (i) one or more cameras, (ii) one or more motion sensors, (iii) one or more manipulable buttons, (iv) one or more biometric sensors, (vi) one or more microphones, or any combination thereof (Latta [0031]).
Regarding claim 19:
Latta discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of sensors is associated with (i) a gaze tracking module, (ii) an audio detection module, (iii) a body tracking module, (iv) a biometric sensing module, or any combination thereof (Latta [0031]).
Regarding claim 20:
Latta discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of sensors is associated with one or more interactive peripherals (Latta Figure 1 sensors 149 part of mobile device 149).
Regarding claim 21:
Latta disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the adjusting operations performed by the one or more sensors based on the one or more modifications comprises: adjusting a sampling rate of the one or more sensors (Latta [0082] a low power mode of operation … may reduce the rate at which sensing information is provided from the particular sensing device).
Regarding claim 22:
Latta discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein adjusting operations performed by the one or more sensors based on the one or more modifications comprises: modifying a level of processing applied to outputs of the or more sensors (Latta [0082] a low power mode of operation may reduce the quality of sensing information provided from a particular sensing device).
Regarding claim 23:
Latta discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein adjusting operations performed by the one or more sensors based on the one or more modifications comprises: causing the one or more sensors to operate in a lower-power mode of operation mode (Latta [0071] A removed sensor input is a low-power mode, as claimed).
Regarding claim 27:
Latta discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the respective usage levels comprise a usage level for a particular moment of time (Latta [0068] inputs are identified for a particular period of time).
Regarding claim 28:
Latta discloses the computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the respective usage levels comprise a rolling average of interactions over a predefined period of time (Latta [0089] moving average filter).
Regarding claim 29:
Latta discloses the computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the respective usage level of each sensor is determined at a first time (Latta Figure 5A 510), and wherein the method further comprises:
determining an updated respective usage level of each sensor at a second time that is after the first time (Latta [0068] determining of unplugging the device determines a level of usage during a subsequent iteration of the method of figure 5A);
determining one or more updated modifications to operations performed by one or more sensors based on the updated respective usage level of each sensor (Latta Figure 5A 510; determining modification to add/remove sensor during the subsequent iteration in method of Figure 5A); and
adjusting operations performed by one or more sensors based on the one or more updated modifications (Latta Figure 5A 510 – adjusting operations is performed when sensor is removed during the subsequent iteration in method of Figure 5A).
Regarding claim 33:
Claim 33 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 15.
Regarding claim 34:
Claim 34 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 15.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 24, and 30 - 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lata in view of WOLFF-PETERSON et al; (Publication number; US 2011/0021269 A1), hereafter Wolff-Peterson.
Regarding claim 16:
Latta does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: updating a mapping between two or more sensors based on the one or more modifications.
However, Wolff-Peterson discloses a device for managing operation of accessories. More particularly, Wolff-Peterson discloses updating a mapping between two or more sensors based on the one or more modifications (Wolff-Peterson [0032] [ 0033] user drag and drop function performs claimed updating of mapping between actions and input functions).
It would have been obvious to modify Latta to include updating a mapping between two or more sensors based on the one or more modifications, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate efficiently managing utilization of accessories thereby improving the ability to compete in a gaming environment (Wolff-Peterson [0003]).
Regarding claim 17:
Latta (in view of Wolff-Peterson) discloses the computer implemented method of claim 16, wherein updating a mapping between two or more sensors based on the one or more modifications comprises: varying a mapping of the one or more sensors of a first type to one or more sensors of a second type (Wolff-Peterson [0016] [0049] substitute simulations provided).
Regarding claim 24:
Latta (in view of Wolff-Peterson) discloses the computer implemented method of claim 16, wherein determining one or more modification to operation performed by the one or more sensors based on the respective usage level of each sensor comprises: determining the one or more modifications based on user preference data associated with a user (Wolff-Peterson [0035] step 812 Profile used).
Regarding claim 30:
Latta does not disclose the computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the respective usage levels are predicted future usage levels.
However, Wolff-Peterson discloses a device for managing operation of accessories. More particularly, Wolff-Peterson discloses wherein the respective usage levels are predicted future usage levels (Wolff-Peterson [0057] statistical and behavior modeling used).
It would have been obvious to modify Latta (in view of Wolff-Peterson) wherein the respective usage levels are predicted future usage levels, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate efficiently managing utilization of accessories thereby improving the ability to compete in a gaming environment (Wolff-Peterson [0003]).
Regarding claim 31:
Latta (in view of Wolff-Peterson) discloses the computer implemented method of claim 30, comprising: determining, based on data characterizing behavior of a user, the predicted future usage level (Wolff-Peterson [0057] predicted behavior of the user would include future usage level by AMS).
Regarding claim 32:
Latta (in view of Wolff-Peterson) discloses the computer implemented method of claim 30, comprising: determining, based on data characterizing sensor usage patterns, the predicted future usage levels (Wolff-Peterson [0057] statistical analysis of the user would include predicted future usage level of AMS).
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latta in view of Hyun-suk MIN (Publication number: US 2013/0265261 A1), hereafter Min.
Regarding claim 25:
Latta does not disclose the computer implemented method of claim 24, wherein the user preference data characterized preferred responses to environmental parameters.
However, Min discloses a user terminal device and control method device. More particularly, Min discloses user preference data characterized preferred responses to environmental parameters (Min [0013] operating condition includes environment of external device; see also Figure 4 showing switching of input from 1st mode to 2nd mode based on the operating condition).
It would have been obvious to modify Latta wherein the user preference data characterized preferred responses to environmental parameters, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate improve the accessibility and convenience of the input device (Min [0007]).
Regarding claim 26:
Latta does not discloses the computer implemented method of claim 24, wherein the user preference data characterizes preferred responses to a user physical state, a user mental state, or both.
However, Min discloses a user terminal device and control method device. More particularly, Min discloses wherein the user preference data characterizes preferred responses to a user physical state, a user mental state, or both (Min [0100] operating condition includes moving object; see Figure 5 illustrating moving state of user and switching of input mode).
It would have been obvious to modify Latta wherein the user preference data characterizes preferred responses to a user physical state, a user mental state, or both, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate improve the accessibility and convenience of the input device (Min [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 1 May 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights