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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappus et al. (US Publication 2019/0197840; IDS dated 03/14/2022 Cite No. 141; hereinafter Kappus).
With regards to claim 23, Kappus teaches an acoustic phased array system comprising:
a first ultrasonic transducer (one of the individual transducers; [0185]) and a second ultrasonic transducer (one of the individual transducers; [0185]) for producing mid-air haptic feedback ([0150-0152]), the first ultrasonic transducer having a first position and a first orientation, the second ultrasonic transducer having a second position and a second orientation (see transducer arrays 950 and 960 comprising individual transducers; FIG. 9A);
memory ([0025, 0153]);
a set of driving phases stored in memory ([0054-0061]);
a first mapping of the driving phases to the first ultrasonic transducer and the second ultrasonic transducer ([0141-0142, 0309]);
a second mapping of the driving phases to the first ultrasonic transducer and the second ultrasonic transducer, wherein the second mapping is different than the first mapping ([0141, 0143, 0314-0322]);
an electronic driving circuit ([0025]);
wherein the electronic driving circuit uses the first mapping to power the first ultrasonic transducer and the second ultrasonic transducer at a first phase ([0196-0198]) specified by the first mapping ([0328-0330]).
However, Kappus does not explicitly teaches wherein, during a first acoustic cycle, the electronic driving unit uses the second mapping to power the first ultrasonic transducer at a second phase specified by the second mapping while maintaining to power the second ultrasonic transducer at the first phase specified by the first mapping; and wherein, during a second acoustic cycle subsequent to the first acoustic cycle, the electronic driving unit uses the second mapping to power the second ultrasonic transducer at the second phase specified by the second mapping while maintaining to power the first ultrasonic transducer at the second phase specified by the second mapping.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Kappus teaches a general condition of activating a plurality of individual transducers ([0250]) including the first and second ultrasonic transducer (see FIG. 16) during a first and second acoustic cycle (FIG. 16A-E) and adjusting the phase and amplitude ([0306]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Kappus of providing mappings to respective transducers (including power, phase, amplitude) including the cycles as claimed through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of achieving a predictable result of providing mid-air haptic feedback as originally intended.
With regards to claim 24, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 23, further comprising:
a set of driving amplitudes stored in memory ([0018, 0055]);
wherein the first mapping further comprises mapping the driving amplitudes to the first ultrasonic transducer and the second ultrasonic transducer ([0062-0069, 0306]); and
wherein the second mapping further comprises mapping the driving amplitudes to the first ultrasonic transducer and the second ultrasonic transducer ([0062-0069, 0306]).
With regards to claim 25, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 24, wherein the first mapping and the second mapping sample different values from the set of driving phases ([0303-0326]).
With regards to claim 26, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 24, wherein the second mapping is a translation of the first mapping ([0155-0157, 0334]).
With regards to claim 27, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 24. However, Kappus is silent regarding wherein the second mapping is a rotation of the first mapping.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, the mapping correspond to the position of the body part ([0285]) and the rotation of the hand (body part) is routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second mapping as taught by Kappus to be a rotation of the first mapping via routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of mapping the effect based on the rotated position of the human body part ([0285]).
With regards to claim 28, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 24, wherein the second mapping changes a solution plane along a z-axis from the first mapping ([0074]).
With regards to claim 29, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 24, further comprising: determining a scaling factor ([0317]) for the driving amplitudes where at least one of the first ultrasonic transducer and the second ultrasonic transducer is driven at full scale when the scaling factor is applied to the driving amplitudes ([0075, 0217]).
With regards to claim 30, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 29, wherein the driving amplitudes are scaled together by a time-varying function ([0074-0075, 0217, 0326, 0329]).
With regards to claim 31, Kappus teaches the acoustic phased array system as in claim 24, wherein the first mapping is summed with the second mapping ([0074-0075, 0244]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Remarks on pages 4-5, Applicant argues that Kappus does not teach the new limitations of claim 23. Specifically, the new limitations recite “wherein, during a first acoustic cycle, the electronic driving unit uses the second mapping to power the first ultrasonic transducer at a second phase specified by the second mapping while maintaining to power the second ultrasonic transducer at the first phase specified by the first mapping; wherein, during a second acoustic cycle subsequent to the first acoustic cycle, the electronic driving unit uses the second mapping to power the second ultrasonic transducer at the second phase specified by the second mapping while maintaining to power the first ultrasonic transducer at the second phase specified by the second mapping.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because Kappus does suggest the claimed invention. It is acknowledged that although Kappus does not explicitly teaches the specific scenario as claimed. However, Kappus does teach activating a plurality of individual transducers ([0250]) including the first and second ultrasonic transducer (see FIG. 16) during a first and second acoustic cycle (FIG. 16A-E) and adjusting the phase and amplitude ([0306]) as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Kappus of providing mappings to respective transducers (including power, phase, amplitude) including the cycles as claimed through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of achieving a predictable result of providing mid-air haptic feedback as originally intended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853