Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bromley et al (US 4,672,541).
As per claim 1 Bromley et al discloses: A position indicator for indicating a position in a three- dimensional space {Note: When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. }, comprising:
a rod-shaped housing 41;
a position indicating part {figure 6, Note: the ball at the end of housing 41} provided at one end in an axial direction of the rod-shaped housing 41; and
a grip part 36 configured to be held by a palm of a user in a state in which a side of the rod- shaped housing, on which the position indicating part is provided, is gripped by a first finger and a second finger different from the first finger of the user, wherein the grip part 36 extends in a direction intersecting the axial direction of the rod- shaped housing {Note: part 36 has width, as a result, it extends in a direction intersecting the axial direction of housing 41}.
As per claim 2 Bromley et al discloses: The position indicator according to claim 1, comprising: an operation part 42 provided on the side of the rod-shaped housing 41, on which the position indicating part is provided, wherein the operation part 42 is operable by the first finger or the second finger when the grip part 36 is held by the palm of the user {figure 6}.
As per claim 3 Bromley et al discloses: The position indicator according to claim 2, comprising: a communication circuit 21 configured to communicate with an external device in response to an operation of the operation part 42 by the user {figure 3}.
As per claim 4 Bromley et al discloses: The position indicator according to claim 1, wherein the grip part 36 includes an operation part 42 operable by the user, the position indicator comprising: a communication circuit 21 configured to communicate with an external device in response to an operation of the operation part 42 by the user {figure 3}.
As per claim 9 Bromley et al discloses: The position indicator according to claim 1, wherein the rod-shaped housing 41 is integrally formed { Note: As the claims are directed to a position indicator, per se, the method limitation "integrally formed" only been accorded weight to the extent that it affects the structure of the completed position indicator. Note that "[d]etermination of patentability in 'product-by-process' claims is based on product itself, even though such claims are limited and defined by process [i.e., "integrally formed"], and thus product in such claim is unpatentable if it is the same as, or obvious form, product of prior art, even if prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). Furthermore, note that a "[p]roduct-by-process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made [i.e., "integrally formed"] is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations", In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1976) } with the grip part 36 {figure 6}.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromley et al (US 4,672,541) in view of Tamura et al (US 2017/0177099).
Regarding claim 6 Bromley et al is silent as to: the position indicator, in operation, indicates a position on an input surface of a position detection sensor, and the position indicating part is coupled to the position detection sensor by electromagnetic induction. With respect to claim 6 Tamura et al discloses: the position indicating part, in operation, couples to the position detecting sensor by an electromagnetic induction system. { [0198] However, the transmission-type electronic pen of the above-described embodiment can be similarly applied also to the case of a transmission-type electronic pen of the electromagnetic induction system. }
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the device of Bromley et al with the position indicating part, in operation, couples to the position detecting sensor by an electromagnetic induction system as taught by Tamura et al. The rationale is as follow: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to provide a device, such as a pen or position indicator, with a position indicating part, in operation, couples to the position detecting sensor by an electromagnetic induction system so as to provide an intuitive interactive input system for an electronic device.
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromley et al (US 4,672,541) in view of Dai et al (US 2014/0354553).
Regarding claim 7 Bromley et al is silent as to: the position indicator, in operation, indicates a position on an input surface of a position detection sensor 29, and the position indicating part 7 is coupled to the position detection sensor 29 by capacitive coupling. With respect to claim 7 Dai et al discloses: [0090] For example, capacitive touchscreens detect touch input when an object (e.g., a fingertip or stylus) distorts or interrupts an electrical current running across the surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the device of Bromley et al the position indicator, in operation, indicates a position on an input surface of a position detection sensor, and the position indicating part is coupled to the position detection sensor by capacitive coupling as taught by Dai et al. The rationale is as follow: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to provide a device, such as a pen or position indicator, with the position indicator, in operation, indicates a position on an input surface of a position detection sensor, and the position indicating part is coupled to the position detection sensor by capacitive coupling so as to provide an intuitive interactive input system for an electronic device.
Regarding claim 8 Bromley et al is silent as to: The position indicator according to claim 1, which is configured to input a position into a virtual reality (VR) space. With respect to claim 8 Dai et al discloses: The position indicator according to claim 1, which is configured to input a position into a virtual reality (VR) space. { [0086] Other examples of a NUI include motion gesture detection using accelerometers/gyroscopes, facial recognition, 3D displays, head, eye, and gaze tracking, immersive augmented reality and virtual reality systems, all of which provide a more natural interface, as well as technologies for sensing brain activity using electric field sensing electrodes (EEG and related methods). }
Regarding claim 12 Bromley et al is silent as to: The position detection system according to claim 10, comprising: a display configured to display a trajectory of a position indicated by the position indicator, wherein an image including the trajectory of the indicated position displayed on the display is a virtual reality (VR) image. With respect to claim 12 Dai et al discloses: The position detection system according to claim 10, comprising: a display configured to display a trajectory of a position indicated by the position indicator, wherein an image including the trajectory of the indicated position displayed on the display is a virtual reality (VR) image. {[0086] Other examples of a NUI include motion gesture detection using accelerometers/gyroscopes. facial recognition, 3D displays, head, eye, and gaze tracking, immersive augmented reality and virtual reality systems, all of which provide a more natural interface, as well as technologies for sensing brain activity using electric field sensing electrodes (EEG and related methods). }
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the position indicator of VEESER et al to input a position into a virtual reality (VR) space as taught by Dai et al. The rationale is as follow: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to provide the position indicator to input a position into a virtual reality (VR) space so as to provide the user with an immersive and realistic experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are allowed.
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 DAVID D DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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.
/DAVID D DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
DDD
Prosecution Insights