DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the request for pre-appeal brief filed on 02/05/2025.
Claims 1-8 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
103 Rejection
The Applicant remarks that prior art does not disclose the claimed invention. Examiner disagrees by the following rationale.
The Applicant states the citations of prior art Taninaka fail to teach or suggest any type of control unit that is configured to set a cycle of a driving signal such that a temporary match is made between a direction in which an acceleration of the manipulation unit is exerted, the manipulation unit having started to vibrate in response to a start of the vibration generation device, and a direction in which an excitation force is exerted from the vibration generation device on the manipulation unit. The citations of Taninaka discloses such attributes by their invention. As shown in the cited Figures of Taninaka (Fig. 11A and 11B overlapped) to better attain Examiner’s rationale. The cited cycle starts together with the vibration, showing both the direction of acceleration (Fig. 11B) moving in the same direction at the input (Fig. 11A), starting at the zero point in time together [see figure below, the first circled area at the left].
PNG
media_image1.png
480
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It appears the crux of the argument is the configured to “acting to temporarily match the two recited directions”, even though the same objective of the claim language is met. As in, the actions of the Taninaka are only happenstance and not by direct intention of the Taninaka’s invention. It should be noted that a claim that is “configured to” need only meet the end results of the limitation regardless of design intentions. Without additional details, the citations of Taninaka, cover the limitations of the claim language.
The Applicant continues with similar remarks stating the diagrams illustrate acceleration of vibration of an LRA when a sine wave having a natural frequency… used as a drive signal. That Taninaka’s drive unit (using) are not intentionally acting to temporarily match the recited directions of claim 1. Intentions are of inconsequence, as the diagrams (Fig. 11A and Fig. 11B) show there is a temporary match which happens when initiated, as claimed. Further, as the design of Taninaka does disclose a temporary match in direction, as claimed in the claimed language, an argument can be made there is intention as that is how drive unit is depicted/designed to act by Taninaka. There are no further details to the cycle or requirements to the matching in the claim, only that “wherein the control unit is configured to set the cycle of the driving signal such that a temporary match is made between a direction in which an acceleration of the manipulation unit is exerted, the manipulation unit having started to vibrate in response… generation device,”. This citations shows a match to the vibration response.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
We see this with the first “red” (long arrow, input) and “blue” (short arrow, acceleration) arrows starting in an upward direction (first circle at the left). Although the intentions of the claim language may have a desire to refer to more significant attributes, the claim language, as disclosed, is understood to be disclosed by prior art Taninaka. Regardless of intentions, the objectives of the configurations are met. If a claim stated, “A computer configured to be a paper weight, to hold a piece of paper down” and there is some prior art that shows a computer put on top of piece of paper designed to determine the composition of the paper it’s on top of, the configurations are met for the computer acting as a paper weight even though that was not the exact intention. As there is a lack to any further details to the specifics of the operations in the claim language, the configuration as per the claim language is disclosed by prior art Taninaka. If there is specifics to how the invention conveys its intentions, the Examiner recommends adding such language to the claims. The rejections are maintained.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160239089 (“Taninaka”).
As per claim 1 Taninaka discloses an input device comprising [¶ 55 a touch panel]:
a manipulation unit comprising an input detection unit, where the manipulation unit is configured to be manipulated with a finger [¶ 59 in response to a finger of the user contacting the touch panel… , Fig. 3];
a support device [Fig. 3.10, Fig. 7];
an elastic support mechanism configured to link the manipulation unit and the support device together [Fig. 3.130 (components vibrate, in order for connection to not break, there has to be some amount of elasticity to the structure to function), Fig. 7];
a vibration generation device configured to vibrate the manipulation unit and to provide a manipulation feeling to the finger that manipulates the manipulation unit [¶ 57 a vibration system, ¶ 62 LRA(linear resonate actuator) 30… includes spring… vibration frequency]; and
a control unit configured to set a cycle of a driving signal provided to the vibration generation device [¶ 6 a drive apparatus… a first drive signal configured to vibrate a vibration-generating device, ¶57 the electronic device… has a touch panel… LRA attached… . LRA is a vibration-generating device… , and an actuator, to generate vibration when driven mainly by the resonance frequency, and the vibration amount changes depending on the amplitude…];
wherein the control unit is configured to set the cycle of the driving signal such that a temporary match is made between a direction in which an acceleration of the manipulation unit is exerted [¶ 89 acceleration of vibration of the LRA… is given as the drive signal., Fig. 11A (drive signal),Fig. 11B (LRA)], the manipulation unit having started to vibrate in response to a start of the vibration generation device [¶ 90 the acceleration of the touch panel is detected by an accelerometer…], and a direction in which an excitation force is exerted from the vibration generation device on the manipulation unit [¶ 89 acceleration of vibration of the LRA… is given as the drive signal., ¶ 90 the acceleration of the vibration of the LRA when a
PNG
media_image1.png
480
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
simulation is performed with the drive signal…
figures 11A and 11B overlapped, it is seen (shown by the arrow directions) the input and acceleration have temporary matching directions which is started with the initial response)]
As per claim 2 Taninaka discloses further wherein the controller is configured to make the match between a time at which the acceleration of the manipulation unit takes a peak value in the direction in which the acceleration is exerted and a time at which the excitation force exerted from the vibration generation device on the manipulation unit takes another peak value in the direction in which the excitation force is exerted [¶ Fig. 11B (shows peak values of LRA vibration device after receiving driving signal), Fig. 11C (shows acceleration of vibration of touch panel affected by LRA, with valley and peaks coinciding)].
As per claim 3 Taninaka discloses further wherein a cycle of vibration generated in the vibration generation device is shortened at an intermediate point in time, and when the cycle is shortened, the control unit is configured to make the match between the direction in which the acceleration of the manipulation unit is exerted and the direction in which the excitation force is exerted on the manipulation unit [Fig. 11A, Fig. 11B (First time block, acceleration completes 2 cycles, where the second time block acceleration signal shortens to 1.5 cycles in the same amount of time with a matching direction indicated with the arrows
PNG
media_image2.png
428
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
].
As per claim 5 Taninaka discloses further wherein: the manipulation unit comprises an acceleration sensor; and the control unit is configured to set the cycle of the driving signal with
reference to a detection output from the acceleration sensor [¶ 90 the acceleration of the touch panel is detected by an accelerometer…¶ 145 the acceleration can be measured comparatively simply by an accelerometer].
As per claim 6 Taninaka discloses further wherein the control unit is configured to set the cycle of the driving signal according to vibration characteristics of the manipulation unit [¶ 52 the residual vibration is checked so that generated vibration is checked so that generated vibration steeply damps in one to several cycles, to present the sense of clicking (in response to being touched, (understood as responsive feedback to a touch input))].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160239089 (“Taninaka”) in further view of US 20190251807 (“Nagisetty”).
As per claim 4 Taninaka discloses further wherein the control unit is configured to make the match between the direction in which the acceleration of the manipulation unit is exerted and the direction in which the excitation force is exerted on the manipulation unit during an interval between a time at which the acceleration of the manipulation unit takes a third peak value and a time at which the acceleration of the manipulation unit takes a sixth peak value [Fig. 11A, Fig. 11B (Peak value labeled 3, show same direction).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further a 6th peak value is not depicted from the input however that only indicates the input was cut short. If the input continued it would match the direction of the 6th peak value of the acceleration (as shown here).
PNG
media_image4.png
400
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
If not inherent it would have been obvious that the direction of 6th peak values of both the input and acceleration signal would be in the same direction as the input is moving at a consistent frequency that aligns with the direction of the acceleration signal at the 6th peak value as that is the nature of the signal].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160239089 (“Taninaka”) in further view of US 20190251807 (“Nagisetty”).
As per claim 7 Taninaka discloses further wherein: the manipulation unit comprises an accelerometer sensor [¶ 90 detected by an accelerometer, ¶ 145 accelerometer]; and the control unit is configured to correct the cycle of the driving signal with reference to a detection output from the sensor [¶ 150 the measurement system… , ¶ 151 the vibrator is driven by the drive signal that supplied… characteristic of the free vibration of the LRA can be obtained by measuring the free vibration of the LRA by the accelerometer after having the drive signal turned off (a type of calibration setup)].
Taninaka is silent to using a temperature sensor.
Nagisetty discloses using a temperature sensor in combination with haptic feedback system for corrections [¶ 60 temperature sensors… haptic device including a haptic feedback look … to provide.. .measurement… (if incorrect, guide signals used to improve performance)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Taninaka with the teachings of Nagisetty for including additional sensors that can work together for purposes of identifying different problematic situations to be corrected by using a suite of sensors to better adapt to different environments of use for improved functionality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160239089 (“Taninaka”) in further view of US20240275875 (“Ryu”).
As per claim 8 Taninaka discloses further wherein the elastic support mechanism
comprises elastic material [Fig. 3.130 (double sided tape that absorbs vibrational movements)].
Taninaka is silent to a leaf spring and rubber member.
Ryu discloses further a leaf spring and rubber member for a display support [¶ 22 hinge part is embedded in an elastic material such as rubber, ¶ 12 the leaf spring may support the bottom of the flexible display].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Taninaka to include the teaching of Ryu to have elastic support members to include such materials as rubber and leaf springs for having flexible support to allow movement and absorption of forces applied to the display for minimizes possible damage to delicate surfaces by allowing flexible motions on the display.
Additional Art to Consider
NPL Pub (IEEE) titled, Effect of Waveform on Tactile Perception by Electrovibration Displayed on Touch Screens, includes a system that uses a technique that combines and modulates frequencies of vibration device applications to alter tactile feel for touch screens. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s modulates frequencies applied to a vibration device on a touch panel to alter the tactile feel of user interactions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 5712703969. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662