US 9089770

Patent Summary: US 9,089,770

A concise summary of United States Patent 9,089,770 is provided below, including details of its prosecution and an overview of its independent claims.

Title: Controller for video game console

Assignee: Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

Inventors: Simon Burgess, Duncan Ironmonger

Filing Date: December 27, 2013

Issue Date: July 28, 2015

Abstract: An improved controller for a game console that is intended to be held by a user in both hands in the same manner as a conventional controller, which has controls on the front operable by the thumbs, and has two additional controls located on the back in positions to be operated by the middle fingers of a user.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent contains one independent claim.

Claim 1: This claim describes a video game controller with a standard layout on the front and top, but with the addition of two controls on the back. These back controls are specifically designed as long, thin "elongate members" that run at least half the vertical distance of the controller's back. The claim specifies the controller has a front, back, top, and bottom, along with two handles on the sides. The key innovation is the placement and length of these two back controls.

There is a notable history of litigation involving this patent and related patents from the same family. For instance, infringement lawsuits have been filed against companies such as Valve Corporation and Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. These legal disputes have involved proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). A case against Valve Corporation, for example, involved a jury verdict of willful infringement and a damages award of over $4 million. This case also led to a significant Federal Circuit decision regarding IPR estoppel, clarifying which party has the burden of proof.

U.S. Patent 9,089,770 has been the subject of multiple legal disputes, including district court litigations and administrative challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Below is a summary of the known litigation and PTAB proceedings involving this patent.

District Court Litigation

1. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation

• Plaintiff: Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
• Defendant: Valve Corporation
• Jurisdiction: Initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
• Case Numbers: 1:15-cv-04219 (Northern District of Georgia), 2:17-cv-01182 (Western District of Washington).
• Filing Date: December 3, 2015 (in the Northern District of Georgia).
• Outcome/Status: The litigation, which also involved other related patents, proceeded to a jury trial. In February 2021, a jury in the Western District of Washington found that Valve had willfully infringed on Ironburg's patents, including U.S. Patent 9,089,770, and awarded Ironburg approximately $4 million in damages. The case has seen extensive post-trial motions and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, primarily focusing on the related U.S. Patent 8,641,525, with rulings on issues such as IPR estoppel.

2. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd.

• Plaintiff: Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
• Defendant: Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
• Case Number: 1:16-cv-04110.
• Filing Date: 2016.
• Outcome/Status: This patent infringement action involved U.S. Patent 9,089,770 along with several other related patents. Court documents indicate a claims construction order was issued in June 2018. The case was ultimately terminated, reportedly due to a settlement between the parties.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

U.S. Patent 9,089,770 has also been challenged through Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, which are trials conducted at the PTAB to review the patentability of claims.

1. IPR2016-00949

• Petitioner: Valve Corporation
• Patent Owner: Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
• Filing Date: April 22, 2016.
• Outcome/Status: Valve Corporation filed this IPR petition challenging the claims of U.S. Patent 9,089,770. The PTAB issued a final written decision in this proceeding.

2. IPR2017-00137

• Petitioner: Valve Corporation
• Patent Owner: Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
• Filing Date: October 25, 2016.
• Outcome/Status: This was another IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against U.S. Patent 9,089,770. This proceeding was terminated before a final written decision was issued due to a settlement between the parties.

3. IPR2018-00356

• Petitioner: Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd.
• Patent Owner: Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
• Filing Date: January 3, 2018.
• Outcome/Status: This IPR was filed by Collective Minds. The PTAB instituted the trial, but the proceeding was terminated after a settlement was reached between the parties.

Proceedings overview

There have been three AIA trial proceedings filed against US Patent 9,089,770. One proceeding resulted in a final written decision, while two others were terminated due to settlement. As a result, the patent has seen one IPR go to a final written decision, and the claims impacted by that decision have been canceled.

IPR2016-00949 — Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-04-22
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: William P. Keane, Georgianna W. Chang, Trenton E. Miller
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over US 7,407,439 B1 (Ochoa) in view of US D623,649 S1 (S.A.C. Consultancy) and US 2006/0040740 A1 (Brain Box Concepts).
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review of claims 1-20 on October 25, 2016.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on October 24, 2017, the PTAB found claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 unpatentable. Claims 3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 were found patentable. Specifically, the Board determined that claims 1 and 2 were obvious over Ochoa in view of SAC, and that the remaining claims found unpatentable were also obvious over various combinations of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement. A Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: Yes. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 as unpatentable and affirmed claims 3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 as patentable. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 9 F.4th 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
• Defensive value: Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 of US 9,089,770 have been canceled by the PTAB and affirmed on appeal. Any infringement theory relying on these specific claims is invalid.

IPR2017-00137 — Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-10-25
• Status: Procedural Termination (due to settlement)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to termination before final decision.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly detailed in the termination notice, but generally challenged claims of US 9,089,770.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review on April 27, 2017.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on October 2, 2017, due to settlement between the parties. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between Valve Corporation and Ironburg Inventions Ltd. While the specific claims and grounds are not fully detailed in a final decision, the settlement means no claims were invalidated as a direct result of this IPR. However, Valve Corporation and its privies may be estopped from raising grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in this IPR.

IPR2018-00356 — Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-03
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to termination before final decision.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly detailed in the termination notice, but generally challenged claims of US 9,089,770.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review on July 23, 2018.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on October 2, 2018, due to settlement between the parties. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. and Ironburg Inventions Ltd. Similar to IPR2017-00137, no claims were invalidated as a direct result of this IPR, but Collective Minds and its privies may be estopped from raising certain grounds.

Strategic summary

Of the twenty claims in US Patent 9,089,770, eight claims (1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19) have been definitively canceled as unpatentable through a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00949, which was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The remaining twelve claims (3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20) were sustained as patentable in that same proceeding. Two other IPRs (IPR2017-00137 and IPR2018-00356) were filed, but both were terminated due to settlement, meaning no additional claims were invalidated through those administrative challenges.

The estoppel landscape is significant for potential defendants. Valve Corporation, as the petitioner in IPR2016-00949, is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting any invalidity ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in that IPR against the sustained claims (3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20). The Federal Circuit's decision in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. clarified that this estoppel applies not only to grounds actually litigated but also to those that could have been raised in the petition. Similarly, Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd., as a petitioner in IPR2018-00356, is also subject to estoppel for the claims it challenged and any grounds it could have reasonably raised. For other potential defendants, the prior art asserted in IPR2016-00949 against the sustained claims may still be available, provided they are not in privity with Valve or Collective Minds.

There is a clear pattern of litigation, with two separate entities (Valve Corporation and Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd.) filing IPRs against this patent, indicating that it has been actively asserted in the market. The patent owner, Ironburg Inventions Ltd., actively defended its patent, appealing the PTAB's partial invalidation to the Federal Circuit to confirm the patentability of the remaining claims.

Recommended next steps

• For claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19, which were found unpatentable, a defendant can confidently state that these claims are invalid. The Final Written Decision for IPR2016-00949 can be found at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-documents/documents/IPR2016-00949/FD0A1A22-38B7-4A73-A78C-080D2F4FE78B/Final%20Written%20Decision%20--%20Paper%2050.pdf. The Federal Circuit's affirmation can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4006240/ironburg-inventions-ltd-v-valve-corp/.
• There are no active PTAB proceedings currently pending for US Patent 9,089,770 according to the provided information. Therefore, there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones to monitor.
• The absence of further PTAB activity on this patent, especially given its litigation history, suggests that the patent owner may view the surviving claims as sufficiently robust, and potential challengers may find it difficult to identify new, unlitigated prior art grounds against the remaining claims, particularly considering the estoppel against Valve and Collective Minds.## Proceedings overview

There have been three AIA trial proceedings filed against US Patent 9,089,770. One proceeding resulted in a final written decision where claims were canceled, while two others were terminated due to settlement. As a result, eight of the patent's claims have been canceled, giving a defendant a stronger defensive posture if asserted against those specific claims.

IPR2016-00949 — Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-04-22
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: William P. Keane, Georgianna W. Chang, Trenton E. Miller
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over US 7,407,439 B1 (Ochoa) in view of US D623,649 S1 (S.A.C. Consultancy) and US 2006/0040740 A1 (Brain Box Concepts).
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review of claims 1-20 on October 25, 2016.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on October 24, 2017, the PTAB found claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 unpatentable. Claims 3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 were found patentable. The Board determined that claims 1 and 2 were obvious over Ochoa in view of SAC, and that the remaining claims found unpatentable were also obvious over various combinations of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement. A Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: Yes. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, upholding the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19, and the patentability of claims 3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 9 F.4th 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
• Defensive value: Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 of US 9,089,770 have been canceled by the PTAB and affirmed on appeal. Any infringement theory relying on these specific claims is invalid.

IPR2017-00137 — Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-10-25
• Status: Procedural Termination (due to settlement)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to termination before final decision.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly detailed in the termination notice, but generally challenged claims of US 9,089,770.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review on April 27, 2017.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on October 2, 2017, due to settlement between the parties. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between Valve Corporation and Ironburg Inventions Ltd. While the specific claims and grounds are not fully detailed in a final decision, the settlement means no claims were invalidated as a direct result of this IPR. However, Valve Corporation and its privies may be estopped from raising grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in this IPR against the sustained claims.

IPR2018-00356 — Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-03
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to termination before final decision.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly detailed in the termination notice, but generally challenged claims of US 9,089,770.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review on July 23, 2018.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on October 2, 2018, due to settlement between the parties. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. and Ironburg Inventions Ltd. Similar to IPR2017-00137, no claims were invalidated as a direct result of this IPR, but Collective Minds and its privies may be estopped from raising certain grounds against the sustained claims.

Strategic summary

Of the twenty claims in US Patent 9,089,770, eight claims (1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19) have been definitively canceled as unpatentable through a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00949, which was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The remaining twelve claims (3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20) were sustained as patentable in that same proceeding. Two other IPRs (IPR2017-00137 and IPR2018-00356) were filed, but both were terminated due to settlement, meaning no additional claims were invalidated through those administrative challenges.

The estoppel landscape is significant for potential defendants. Valve Corporation, as the petitioner in IPR2016-00949, is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting any invalidity ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in that IPR against the sustained claims (3, 5-9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20). The Federal Circuit's decision in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. clarified that this estoppel applies not only to grounds actually litigated but also to those that could have been raised in the petition. Similarly, Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd., as a petitioner in IPR2018-00356, is also subject to estoppel for the claims it challenged and any grounds it could have reasonably raised. For other potential defendants, the prior art asserted in IPR2016-00949 against the sustained claims may still be available, provided they are not in privity with Valve or Collective Minds.

There is a clear pattern of litigation, with two separate entities (Valve Corporation and Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd.) filing IPRs against this patent, indicating that it has been actively asserted in the market. The patent owner, Ironburg Inventions Ltd., actively defended its patent, appealing the PTAB's partial invalidation to the Federal Circuit to confirm the patentability of the remaining claims.

Recommended next steps

• For claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19, which were found unpatentable, a defendant can confidently state that these claims are invalid. The Final Written Decision for IPR2016-00949 can be found at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-documents/documents/IPR2016-00949/FD0A1A22-38B7-4A73-A78C-080D2F4FE78B/Final%20Written%20Decision%20--%20Paper%2050.pdf. The Federal Circuit's affirmation can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4006240/ironburg-inventions-ltd-v-valve-corp/.
• There are no active PTAB proceedings currently pending for US Patent 9,089,770 according to the provided information. Therefore, there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones to monitor.
• The absence of further PTAB activity on this patent, especially given its litigation history, suggests that the patent owner may view the surviving claims as sufficiently robust, and potential challengers may find it difficult to identify new, unlitigated prior art grounds against the remaining claims, particularly considering the estoppel against Valve and Collective Minds.

Inventors

• Simon Burgess: Co-founder of Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
• Duncan Ironmonger: Co-founder of Ironburg Inventions Ltd.

Both inventors were principals of the original assignee at the time of filing. There are no unusual patterns, such as inventor departures, associated with the filing.

Original Assignee

• Ironburg Inventions Ltd.: A UK-based company founded in 2011. Ironburg Inventions serves as the intellectual property holding company for the controller brand Scuf Gaming. Scuf Gaming was founded with the goal of creating high-performance, customizable controllers, and it successfully commercialized a line of products embodying the claimed invention of back-mounted paddles. Scuf Gaming was acquired by Corsair in 2019 but continues to operate as a distinct brand.

Assignment Timeline

• 2014-07-31 (executed) / recorded 2014-08-15 — Reel 033546/0714

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LIMITED
  • Assignee: CHATHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT IV, LLC
  • Correspondent: SGR-IP LAW, 1230 PEACHTREE STREET, NE, SUITE 1750, ATLANTA, GA, 30309
  • Context: This was a securitization agreement where the patent was pledged as collateral for financing provided by Chatham Capital, a private investment firm.

• 2015-04-29 (executed) / recorded 2015-05-05 — Reel 035564/0479

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: BURGESS, SIMON (Inventor)
  • Assignee: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
  • Correspondent: ALSTON & BIRD LLP, 1201 WEST PEACHTREE STREET, ATLANTA, GA, 30309
  • Context: A confirmatory assignment to formalize the company's ownership interest from one of the inventors.

• 2011-06-17 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-14 — Reel 038907/0549

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: IRONMONGER, DUNCAN (Inventor)
  • Assignee: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
  • Correspondent: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD., ATLANTA, GA, 30309
  • Context: A confirmatory assignment, recorded several years after execution, to formalize the company's ownership interest from the second inventor.

• 2016-12-07 (executed) / recorded 2016-12-09 — Reel 040702/0714

  • Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY
  • Assignor: CHATHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT IV, LLC
  • Assignee: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP, 1230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E., SUITE 3100, ATLANTA, GA, 30309
  • Context: Release of the prior security interest, indicating the financing agreement with Chatham Capital was terminated or satisfied.

• 2016-12-07 (executed) / recorded 2016-12-09 — Reel 040878/0527

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LIMITED
  • Assignee: TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: KENNETH R. SITTERSON, JR, TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION, 3700 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 530, RALEIGH, NC, 27612
  • Context: A new securitization agreement, pledging the patent as collateral to Triangle Capital Corporation, a specialty finance company.

• 2016-12-07 (executed) / recorded 2016-12-12 — Reel 040884/0057

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LIMITED
  • Assignee: TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION, AS AGENT
  • Correspondent: KENNETH R. SITTERSON, JR., TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION, 3700 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 530, RALEIGH, NC, 27612
  • Context: A substantively identical securitization agreement to the one above, with the assignee noted "AS AGENT," likely for a syndicate of lenders.

• 2019-12-19 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-13 — Reel 051569/0397

  • Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY
  • Assignor: BSP AGENCY LLC
  • Assignee: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP, 525 B STREET, SUITE 2200, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92101
  • Context: Release of the security interest previously held by Triangle Capital. Triangle's investment portfolio was sold to an affiliate of Benefit Street Partners (BSP) in 2018. This recording clears the title, returning full ownership to Ironburg.

Timeline Diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9089770
    2011 : Earliest priority date
    2013 : Application filed
    2014 : Security interest to Chatham Capital
    2015 : Patent issued to Ironburg Inventions
         : First infringement suit filed
    2016 : Chatham interest released
         : Security interest to Triangle Capital
    2020 : Triangle-BSP interest released

NPE / Troll-Pattern Signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Not Present. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. is the IP holding company for Scuf Gaming, a well-established operating company that manufactures and sells controllers embodying the patent's claims. The patent has not been transferred to a licensing-only LLC with no products.

2. Known asserter in the chain: Not Present. Neither Ironburg Inventions Ltd. nor any of the financial institutions involved in securitization (Chatham Capital, Triangle Capital) are listed as NPEs or patent trolls on public lists maintained by RPX or Unified Patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Not Present. The correspondents of record are different for each distinct phase of the patent's assignment history (confirmatory assignments, securitizations, releases). There is no single recurring attorney or firm that would suggest management by an NPE.

4. Cascading transfers: Not Present. The transfers are not rapid, consecutive assignments between different LLCs. They are distinct securitization and release events with legitimate financial institutions, spread out over several years.

5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not Present. The patent has remained with the original assignee, Ironburg Inventions Ltd., throughout its litigation history. The first infringement suit was filed in December 2015, well after the patent issued and with no preceding transfer of ownership.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not Present. The original assignee, Ironburg, remains a viable entity and was acquired by Corsair in a standard business transaction, not a bankruptcy proceeding.

7. Privateering: Not Present. This is a case of an operating company's IP holding entity directly asserting its own patents. There is no evidence of a transfer to a third-party NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not Present. The patent is not assigned to any known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

• Operating-company assertion

Justification: The ownership of US 9,089,770 has remained with Ironburg Inventions Ltd., the IP holding company for the manufacturer Scuf Gaming, since its issuance. The assignment record shows only standard securitization agreements with financial institutions, all of which were subsequently released, and confirmatory assignments from the inventors. The litigation involving this patent has been conducted directly by the original assignee, which commercialized the invention, against its competitors.

Verification Link: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for Pat. No. 9,089,770

Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9,089,770

The following analysis details the most relevant prior art cited by the examiner during the prosecution of US Patent 9,089,770. Each reference is assessed for its potential to anticipate the claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The independent claim (Claim 1) is the primary focus, as all other claims are dependent upon it. Claim 1 of US 9,089,770 requires a video game controller with an outer case, handles, and importantly, first and second "back controls" that are "elongate members," each extending "along at least half of a distance between the top edge and the bottom edge" of the controller.

---

US Patent 7,753,786 B2

• Full Citation: US 7,753,786 B2, "Hand held controller for games"
• Assignee: Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd.
• Publication Date: July 13, 2010 (Filing Date: January 14, 2003)
• Brief Description: This patent describes a game controller with additional input buttons on the rear side of the hand grips. These buttons are positioned to be operated by the user's middle or ring fingers, freeing up the thumbs and index fingers for other controls. Figure 2 shows buttons (4a, 4b) on the back of the controller's handles.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference discloses the general concept of back-mounted controls. However, the controls depicted are discrete, circular buttons and are not "elongate members" that extend over a significant portion of the controller's vertical axis. Therefore, it does not appear to anticipate the specific requirement in Claim 1 that the back controls be "elongate" and extend "along at least half" the distance between the top and bottom edges.

---

US Patent 2008/0261695 A1

• Full Citation: US 2008/0261695 A1, "Game Controller"
• Inventor: Adam Wesley Coe
• Publication Date: October 23, 2008 (Filing Date: April 19, 2007)
• Brief Description: This patent application discloses a game controller with additional finger-actuated controls on the rear surface of the controller's grips. The invention aims to provide a more ergonomic and efficient control scheme by allowing fingers other than the thumbs and index fingers to provide inputs. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate buttons (22, 24) located on the back of the controller handles.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: Similar to US 7,753,786, this reference teaches the placement of controls on the back of the controller for operation by the middle fingers. However, the controls are shown as standard buttons, not the long, paddle-like "elongate members" required by Claim 1. The length limitation of the back controls is a key distinguishing feature of US 9,089,770 that is not met by this reference.

---

US Design Patent USD623649S1

• Full Citation: US D623,649 S1, "Video game controller"
• Assignee: S.A.C. Consultancy
• Publication Date: September 14, 2010 (Filing Date: August 28, 2008)
• Brief Description: This is a design patent for the ornamental design of a video game controller. The figures show a controller with two paddle-like levers on the back. These levers appear to be elongate and are located on the rear of the controller grips.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This design patent is highly relevant. Figure 2 clearly shows two controls on the back that could be described as "elongate members." The critical question for anticipation is whether these members "extend along at least half" of the controller's vertical distance as measured along their longitudinal axis. While they are clearly elongate, their precise proportional length relative to the controller body is open to interpretation from the drawings alone. An examiner could argue that they do not meet the "at least half" limitation of Claim 1. However, this is the most visually similar prior art reference among those cited. The novelty of the '770 patent likely relies on this specific length limitation being a functional, rather than purely ornamental, aspect that is not explicitly taught or required by the design patent.

---

US Patent 5,551,693 A

• Full Citation: US 5,551,693 A, "Controller unit for electronic devices"
• Assignee: Sony Corporation
• Publication Date: September 3, 1996 (Filing Date: May 9, 1994)
• Brief Description: This patent, which covers the design of the original Sony PlayStation controller, discloses a controller with two handles intended to be gripped by the user's hands. The focus is on the ergonomic shape and the arrangement of controls on the front face and top edge (shoulder buttons). It does not include any controls on the back surface of the controller handles.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is cited to establish the state of a "conventional controller" at the time. It does not disclose any back-mounted controls and therefore does not anticipate Claim 1 or any of its dependent claims. Its inclusion in the examination process serves to contextualize the claimed invention's point of departure from the standard controller design of the era.

---

US Patent 2006/0040740 A1

• Full Citation: US 2006/0040740 A1, "Video game controller"
• Assignee: Brain Box Concepts, Inc.
• Publication Date: February 23, 2006 (Filing Date: August 23, 2004)
• Brief Description: This application describes a controller with side-mounted buttons (referred to as "Quick Look" buttons) located on the outer sides of the controller grips, intended for actuation by the user's ring or pinky fingers. It also mentions the possibility of placing switches on the rear surface.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: While this reference discusses alternative button placements, including the rear, the primary embodiment and figures focus on side-mounted buttons. The controls described are discrete buttons, not "elongate members" that extend a significant vertical distance. Therefore, it does not anticipate the specific geometry and length requirements of the back controls as claimed in Claim 1 of US 9,089,770.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9,089,770 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates whether the invention described in independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,089,770 would have been obvious to a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made, considering the prior art cited during the patent's prosecution. An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

The central features of Claim 1 are a standard video game controller form factor with the addition of two "back controls" that are "elongate members," each extending "along at least half" the vertical distance of the controller's back, as measured along the member's longitudinal axis.

---

Primary Obviousness Combination

Combination of US Design Patent D623,649 S1 (hereinafter '649) with the knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA).

This combination argues that the claimed invention is an obvious modification of the controller design shown in the '649 patent.

1. What '649 Discloses: The '649 design patent teaches nearly all the elements of Claim 1.

   • It discloses a video game controller with an outer case, a front and back, top and bottom edges, and two side handles, satisfying the basic structural requirements of Claim 1.
   • Crucially, Figure 2 of '649 clearly depicts two back controls located on the rear of the handles. These controls are undeniably "elongate members," appearing as paddle-like levers.

2. The Missing Element: The only element not explicitly and definitively disclosed in the '649 patent is the precise length requirement of Claim 1: that the elongate members must extend "along at least half" of the distance between the top and bottom edge. The paddles in '649 are elongate, but whether they meet this specific proportional threshold is a matter of interpretation from the drawings.

3. Motivation to Modify '649: A PHOSITA, starting with the controller design in '649, would have been motivated to extend the length of the back paddles to at least half the height of the controller for well-understood and predictable reasons:

   • Accommodating Different Hand Sizes: The primary motivation for lengthening the paddles is to improve ergonomics and accessibility for a wider range of users. A longer paddle allows players with different hand sizes (e.g., children and adults) to comfortably reach and actuate the control without needing to reposition their hands.
   • Allowing for Multiple Finger Placements: A longer paddle provides a larger activation area, enabling a user to actuate the control with different fingers (e.g., middle or ring finger) or different parts of their finger. This increases comfort and reduces fatigue during extended gameplay, a well-known goal in controller design. The specification of the '770 patent itself confirms this motivation, stating the elongate shape "provides that different users having different size hands can engage with the paddles in a comfortable position" (Col. 4, lines 37-40).
   • Predictable Result: Lengthening a control surface to improve ergonomic accessibility is a simple design expedient, not a source of non-obviousness. The result—that more people can use the controller more comfortably—is entirely predictable. There would have been no technical challenge or unexpected outcome from making this modification.

Conclusion: Because the '649 patent discloses elongate back paddles on a standard controller, the only novel feature of Claim 1 is a specific length limitation. Modifying the length of the paddles shown in '649 to meet this limitation would have been an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA seeking to improve the known ergonomic function of such controls. Therefore, Claim 1 is obvious over the '649 patent in view of the general knowledge and design principles available to a PHOSITA.

---

Secondary Obviousness Combination

Combination of US 7,753,786 (hereinafter '786) or US 2008/0261695 (hereinafter '695) with US Design Patent D623,649 S1 (hereinafter '649).

This combination argues that it would have been obvious to combine the concept of back-mounted controls from '786 or '695 with the specific paddle-like implementation shown in '649.

1. What '786 and '695 Disclose: Both the '786 patent (Mitsumi) and the '695 application (Coe) teach the foundational concept of placing controls on the back of a controller's handles. The stated motivation is to allow the user's middle or ring fingers to perform actions, thus freeing the thumbs from having to leave the analog sticks to press face buttons. This addresses the exact problem outlined in the background of the '770 patent. However, these references disclose the back controls as small, discrete buttons.

2. Problem with the '786/'695 Implementation: A PHOSITA would recognize that small buttons on the back of a controller could be difficult to locate and actuate without tactile feedback or adjusting one's grip, potentially undermining the goal of seamless operation. This presents a problem: how to best implement the useful idea of back-mounted controls.

3. '649 as a Solution: The '649 design patent provides a known solution to this implementation problem. It teaches an alternative form for a back-mounted control: an "elongate member" or paddle. A PHOSITA would immediately recognize the advantages of this shape over a small button. The paddle is easier to find and activate, requires less precise finger movement, and offers a larger target.

4. Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, motivated by the teachings of '786 or '695 to add controls to the back of a standard controller, would have looked to known design alternatives for the actuator itself. The paddle design shown in '649 would have been an obvious and superior choice to the simple button. The motivation to combine would be to take the functional concept from '786 or '695 and implement it using the more ergonomic and effective actuator design shown in '649.

5. Final Modification for Length: Having combined these references to arrive at a controller with elongate back paddles, the final step to the claimed invention is identical to that in the primary argument above. A PHOSITA would be motivated to make the paddles sufficiently long (i.e., "at least half" the height) to further enhance the ergonomic benefits and accommodate a wider range of users, which is a predictable and obvious optimization.

Conclusion: The concept of adding rear-mounted controls was known ('786 and '695). The use of elongate paddles as rear-mounted controls was also known ('649). Combining these teachings to create a controller with elongate rear paddles would have been obvious. The final claimed feature—a specific length for those paddles—is an obvious, ergonomic-driven design choice with a predictable result.

Term, Adjustments, and Family for US Patent 9,089,770

This analysis details the patent term, related applications, and projected expiration date for U.S. Patent 9,089,770, based on the provided patent data.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

There is no record of any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) or Patent Term Extension (PTE) for US Patent 9,089,770. A patent's term can be adjusted to compensate for certain delays caused by the USPTO during prosecution. However, in this case, the anticipated expiration date is calculated as exactly 20 years from the earliest priority date, indicating no days were added.

Continuity Data

U.S. Patent 9,089,770 is part of a larger family of patents and applications and claims priority to an earlier application. It has also served as the basis for subsequent continuation applications.

• Parent Application: This patent is a continuation of application US 13/162,727, which was filed on June 17, 2011, and issued as US Patent 8,641,525. The 20-year patent term is calculated from this earlier filing date.

• Continuation Applications: At least five subsequent applications claim this patent family's priority date as continuations. These are:

  • US 14/754,793, now US Patent 9,878,238
  • US 14/754,789, now US Patent 10,286,305
  • US 16/362,137, now US Patent 11,278,797
  • US 17/667,713, now US Patent 11,806,613
  • US 18/483,025, now US Patent 12,318,686

• Divisional Applications: There are no divisional applications listed for this patent. All related applications are identified as continuations.

Patent Family Members

The patent family for US 9,089,770 consists of a series of U.S. patents that all share the same priority date of June 17, 2011. The known family members are:

• US 8,641,525 (The parent patent)
• US 9,089,770 (The subject patent)
• US 9,878,238
• US 10,286,305
• US 11,278,797
• US 11,806,613
• US 12,318,686

Projected Expiration Date

The projected expiration date for U.S. Patent 9,089,770 is June 17, 2031.

This date is calculated 20 years from the filing date of the earliest parent application (US 13/162,727) in the family, which is June 17, 2011. Since there were no patent term adjustments or extensions, the standard 20-year term applies. The patent's enforceability is also contingent upon the timely payment of all required maintenance fees.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation for Technologies Related to US 9,089,770

Publication Date: 2026-05-09
Subject Matter: Derivative works and improvements upon the art of back-mounted, elongate controls for handheld electronic devices, as described in US Patent 9,089,770. The following disclosures are intended to enter the public domain and serve as prior art for future patent applications.

---

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

1.1. Shape-Memory Alloy (SMA) Haptic Elongate Member

• Enabling Description: The elongate member, or paddle, is fabricated from a nickel-titanium (Nitinol) shape-memory alloy. The member is connected to a variable current source controlled by a microcontroller. In its default state (unpowered), the paddle exhibits a specific, engineered level of flexibility. When a game or application sends a haptic feedback signal, the microcontroller passes a controlled current through the Nitinol paddle, causing it to heat via resistance and undergo a phase transition. This transition stiffens the material significantly for a brief period, creating a "click" or "thump" sensation that is felt by the user's finger. The stiffness can be modulated by varying the current, allowing for a range of haptic effects from soft clicks to hard stops. The same actuation can be used to change the resting position or travel distance of the paddle dynamically.

graph TD
    subgraph Controller
        MCU[Microcontroller]
        PADDLE[Nitinol SMA Paddle]
        DRV[Variable Current Driver]
        SWITCH[Actuation Sensor]
    end

    subgraph Game_Engine
        HAPTIC_API[Haptic Feedback API]
    end

    USER[User Finger] -- Applies Force --> PADDLE
    PADDLE -- Deflection --> SWITCH
    SWITCH -- Signals Press --> MCU
    MCU -- Input to Game --> Game_Engine
    Game_Engine -- Event --> HAPTIC_API
    HAPTIC_API -- Command --> MCU
    MCU -- Controls --> DRV
    DRV -- Modulated Current --> PADDLE
    PADDLE -- Phase Transition / Stiffens --> USER

1.2. Multi-Zone Force-Sensitive Resistor (FSR) Elongate Member

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces a simple mechanical switch with a laminated array of force-sensitive resistors (FSRs) integrated along the inner surface of the elongate member. The array consists of at least three discrete FSR zones: top, middle, and bottom. When the user presses the paddle, the microcontroller reads the resistance value from all FSRs. This provides not only a binary pressed/not-pressed state but also analog pressure data (how hard the user is pressing) and positional data (where on the paddle the force is being applied). This allows for multi-stage actuation, where a light press activates one function (e.g., aiming down sights) and a hard press activates a secondary function (e.g., holding breath for stability). It also enables gestures, such as a user sliding their finger from the top to the bottom FSR zone to trigger a "swipe" input.

sequenceDiagram
    participant USER as User Finger
    participant PADDLE as Elongate Member
    participant FSR_ARRAY as FSR Array (Top, Mid, Bot)
    participant ADC as Analog-to-Digital Converter
    participant MCU as Microcontroller

    USER->>PADDLE: Applies pressure to Mid-Zone
    PADDLE->>FSR_ARRAY: Transfers force
    FSR_ARRAY->>ADC: Outputs variable resistance from Mid-FSR
    ADC->>MCU: Converts to digital pressure value [Mid: 85%]
    MCU->>MCU: Interprets as 'Light Press' Action
    USER->>PADDLE: Applies harder pressure, still Mid-Zone
    PADDLE->>FSR_ARRAY: Transfers increased force
    FSR_ARRAY->>ADC: Outputs lower resistance
    ADC->>MCU: Converts to digital pressure value [Mid: 100%]
    MCU->>MCU: Interprets as 'Hard Press' Action

---

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

2.1. Industrial-Scale Joystick with High-Load Elongate Levers

• Enabling Description: This disclosure applies the concept to the control joystick of an industrial crane. The joystick housing is made from cast aluminum. The back of the main control grip features two elongate levers extending the full height of the grip, fabricated from 6mm thick stainless steel. These levers pivot on sealed, heavy-duty ball bearings. Instead of a microswitch, actuation is detected by a non-contact Hall effect sensor that measures the position of a magnet embedded in the lever's pivot mechanism. The levers are designed to withstand an actuation force of up to 200N. Depressing the left lever can activate the crane's horn, while the right lever can cycle through camera views on the operator's display, allowing these secondary functions to be used without releasing the primary hoist/trolley controls.

classDiagram
    class CraneJoystick {
        +primary_X_axis : float
        +primary_Y_axis : float
        +backLeverLeft : BackLever
        +backLeverRight : BackLever
        -mcu : Microcontroller
        +readInputs()
    }
    class BackLever {
        -pivotBearing : BallBearing
        -hallSensor : HallEffectSensor
        -leverBody : StainlessSteel
        +isPressed : bool
        +getActuationPercent() : float
    }
    CraneJoystick "1" *-- "2" BackLever : has

2.2. Micro-Surgical Endoscopic Controller

• Enabling Description: A handheld controller for a robotic endoscopic tool, with a pistol-grip form factor, incorporates two micro-scale elongate members on the back of the grip. The members are 20mm long and 3mm wide, made from PEEK (Polyether ether ketone) for biocompatibility and sterilizability. Actuation is measured by a fiber-optic strain gauge bonded to the base of each flexible PEEK member. As the surgeon's middle finger deflects the member, the fiber is bent, changing its light transmission properties. This change is detected by an interrogator unit connected via the controller's umbilical cable. This non-electronic sensing method makes the controller immune to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in the operating room. The paddles control functions like flushing the endoscopic lens or capturing a high-resolution image.

graph TD
    subgraph Sterile_Field
        Controller[Endoscopic Controller]
        Paddles[PEEK Back Paddles]
        FOSG[Fiber-Optic Strain Gauges]
        Controller -- contains --> Paddles
        Paddles -- deflection bends --> FOSG
    end
    subgraph Non-Sterile_Field
        Interrogator[Optical Interrogator Unit]
        SurgicalSystem[Surgical System CPU]
        FOSG -- Light via Fiber --> Interrogator
        Interrogator -- Measures Light Change --> SurgicalSystem
    end
    Surgeon -- Operates --> Controller

---

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

3.1. Aerospace Pilot Yoke with Integrated Trim/Comms Paddles

• Enabling Description: A control yoke for a general aviation aircraft integrates two elongate capacitive touch paddles onto the back of the left and right grips. The paddles are co-molded with the grip's hard rubber surface and do not move mechanically. They extend vertically for 10cm. The left paddle is segmented into two zones: tapping the top zone adjusts elevator trim up, and the bottom zone adjusts trim down. The right paddle is a single zone; tapping it activates the PTT (Push-to-Talk) for the primary communications radio. This allows the pilot to make fine trim adjustments and communicate during approach and landing without moving a hand to the center console or changing their grip on the yoke. The system is connected to the main avionics bus via a CAN bus interface.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Idle
    state LeftPaddle {
        [*] --> Neutral
        Neutral --> TrimUp: Tap Top Zone
        TrimUp --> Neutral: Release
        Neutral --> TrimDown: Tap Bottom Zone
        TrimDown --> Neutral: Release
    }
    state RightPaddle {
        [*] --> TX_Off
        TX_Off --> TX_On: Tap Paddle
        TX_On --> TX_Off: Release
    }
    Idle --> LeftPaddle
    Idle --> RightPaddle

3.2. Automotive Steering Wheel with Infotainment Swipe Paddles

• Enabling Description: The reverse side of a vehicle's steering wheel, at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions, incorporates two elongate actuators. These actuators are 12cm long and function as physical rocker switches that can be pushed or pulled by the driver's fingers. Pushing the top of the left actuator increases audio volume, while pushing the bottom decreases it. Pulling the left actuator with the fingertip mutes the audio. Pushing the top or bottom of the right actuator skips the media track forward or backward, respectively. Pulling the right actuator cycles through audio sources (FM, Bluetooth, etc.). The inputs are sent to the Body Control Module (BCM) via the Local Interconnect Network (LIN bus) integrated into the steering wheel's clock spring.

graph LR
    subgraph SteeringWheel
        A[Left Paddle]
        B[Right Paddle]
        SCM[Steering Control Module]
    end
    subgraph VehicleBus
        CS[Clock Spring / LIN Bus]
        BCM[Body Control Module]
        HU[Head Unit / Infotainment]
    end

    User -- Pushes/Pulls --> A
    User -- Pushes/Pulls --> B
    A -- Input --> SCM
    B -- Input --> SCM
    SCM -- LIN Frame --> CS
    CS -- LIN Frame --> BCM
    BCM -- CAN Message --> HU

---

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

4.1. AI-Optimized Predictive Input Paddles

• Enabling Description: The controller's elongate members are instrumented with an array of sensors: a force-sensitive resistor for pressure, a capacitive strip for finger position, and a 6-axis IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit). An onboard Edge AI processor (e.g., a Google Coral Edge TPU) runs a recurrent neural network (RNN). The RNN is trained on player data to recognize patterns preceding an action (e.g., a subtle muscle tense and grip shift before a jump). The AI model can then pre-trigger the paddle's input signal microseconds before the physical switch is fully depressed, effectively reducing input latency. The model also adapts the paddle's function map in real-time based on game context, such as automatically mapping the paddle to "reload" when it detects the player's ammo is low and they are behind cover.

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant Sensors as Paddle Sensor Array
    participant EdgeAI as Onboard AI Processor
    participant Game
    loop Real-time Analysis
        User->>Sensors: Grips and moves controller
        Sensors->>EdgeAI: Streams IMU, FSR, Capacitive data
        EdgeAI->>EdgeAI: Analyzes pattern with RNN model
        alt Pattern recognized (e.g., pre-jump)
            EdgeAI->>Game: Sends 'Jump' command predictively
            User->>Sensors: Fully depresses paddle
            Note right of Game: Action already initiated, latency reduced.
        end
    end

4.2. IoT-Enabled Ergonomic Monitoring Paddles

• Enabling Description: Each elongate member is fitted with a flexible printed circuit board containing a high-resolution strain gauge array and a temperature sensor. The controller is Wi-Fi enabled. During gameplay, the controller streams a continuous data feed of strain (indicating grip force and actuation fatigue) and finger temperature to a cloud-based analytics platform via MQTT protocol. This platform analyzes the data to create an ergonomic "stress score" for the player, identifying prolonged sessions or unhealthy grip habits that could lead to RSI. The companion application can provide alerts to the user, suggesting they take a break or adjust their hand position. Esports teams can use this aggregate data to monitor the physical condition and performance of their players.

graph TD
    A[Controller with IoT Paddles] -- MQTT over Wi-Fi --> B(Cloud Broker)
    B --> C{Analytics & Storage}
    C -- Strain/Temp Data --> D[Ergonomic Analysis Engine]
    D -- Generates --> E[Player Stress Score]
    E --> F(Player's Mobile App)
    E --> G(Esports Team Dashboard)
    F -- Issues --> H[RSI Warning / Break Reminder]

---

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

5.1. Dual-Redundancy Safe-Fail Paddle for Drone Control

• Enabling Description: A controller for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) uses elongate back paddles for critical functions like "Return to Home" (RTH). To ensure reliability, each paddle uses a dual-sensing system. A primary optical photointerrupter provides a non-contact, high-reliability signal. A secondary, redundant mechanical switch is also in the circuit. A supervisory microcontroller constantly compares the outputs of both sensors. If a discrepancy is detected (e.g., the optical sensor triggers but the mechanical one does not), the system flags a sensor fault, provides a high-frequency haptic buzz to the operator's hand via a linear resonant actuator in the paddle, and the RTH command is still sent based on the primary sensor's signal. The controller's display immediately shows a "CHECK PADDLE SENSOR" warning.

stateDiagram-v2
    state Active {
        [*] --> Nominal
        Nominal --> FaultDetected : SensorMismatch()
        FaultDetected --> Nominal : SensorsAgree()
    }
    [*] --> Active

    state Nominal {
        Optical_OK
        Mechanical_OK
    }

    state FaultDetected {
        Alert: Activate Haptics
        Alert: Display Warning
        Action: Trust Primary Sensor
    }

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

• Disclosure 1: Combination with USB Human Interface Device (HID) Standard. A controller is disclosed which embodies the features of US 9,089,770, wherein the two elongate back controls are mapped directly to the generic button interfaces of the USB HID specification. Specifically, the left back control is mapped to joystick button #9 and the right back control is mapped to joystick button #10. No proprietary drivers are required for operation, allowing any operating system that supports the HID class (including Windows, macOS, and Linux) to recognize and utilize the back controls as standard inputs for gaming, accessibility software, or other applications.

• Disclosure 2: Combination with Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Human Interface Device Profile. A wireless controller is disclosed that uses the standard BLE HID over GATT Profile to communicate with a host device. The elongate back paddles are included in the HID Report Descriptor as generic buttons within the Game Controls (0x05, 0x05) usage page. This enables native, low-latency wireless compatibility with a wide range of devices including PCs, tablets, and smartphones without the need for a proprietary dongle or software layer, ensuring the back controls are accessible to any application using the standard system-level Bluetooth HID service.

• Disclosure 3: Combination with WebXR Gamepad API. A controller is disclosed which is designed for use with web-based virtual and augmented reality applications. The controller communicates with a PC via a standard USB HID interface. A web browser supporting the WebXR standard accesses the controller through the WebXR Gamepad API. The elongate back paddles are exposed as buttons in the gamepad.buttons array, typically at indices 6 and 7. Web developers can program interactions within a WebXR scene to respond to the pressed state of these buttons, allowing for actions like grabbing virtual objects or teleporting, using only open web standards.