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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed on October 13, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 2 and 13-15 have been amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, , the controller, the processor, the memory, steering wheel, vehicle seat bolster, computer controller, games console controller and a surgical simulation instrument must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 § CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the limitations: “comprising a controller communicatively coupled to the first taxel and the second taxel, and configured with instructions stored in non-transitory memory that when executed by a processor of the controller cause the controller to” found in claim 13 recites NEW MATTER.
With regard to this limitation the Specification and drawings are silent with regard to any mention of a processor or a memory storing instructions with regard to the controller, any coupling, or otherwise. Therefore, the specification and drawings do not provide a written description supporting this limitation.
As a result, the amended claim 13 contains subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claim 13 is found to fail the written description requirement.
Claims 14 and 15 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore also lack written description based on their dependency.
As a result, claims 13-15 contain subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claims 13-15 are found to fail the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0253147 by Sodemann et al. (“Sodemann”).
In re claim 1, Sodemann discloses an apparatus comprising: a solenoid having a first electrical input signal at a first frequency and a second electrical input signal at a second frequency [Fig. 2 #220, ¶¶29, 51-53, among others, describe exciting magnet and coil to provide a plurality of different frequencies]; a first taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, located above an end of the solenoid, wherein the first taxel has a first mechanical resonance frequency such that applying the first electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the first taxel to vibrate [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,27, 35, among others, describe pins 10-30 (taxels) located above 220. Each pin may have a slightly different length, cross-sectional area, and cross-sectional shape, so that each pin has a different resonant frequency. The pins may be fashioned of stainless steel. Table 2 indicates a density of 7800 kg/m3 which corresponds to 400 series which is Ferromagnetic, which means the end of the pin includes a magnetic portion]; a second taxel, comprising a magnetic portion located above the end of the solenoid, wherein the second taxel has a second mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first mechanical resonance frequency, such that applying the second electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the second taxel to vibrate [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,27, 35, among others, describe pins 10-30 (taxels) located above 220. Each pin may have a slightly different length, cross-sectional area, and cross-sectional shape, so that each pin has a different resonant frequency. The pins may be fashioned of stainless steel. Table 2 indicates a density of 7800 kg/m3 which corresponds to 400 series stainless steel which is Ferromagnetic, which means the end of the pin includes a magnetic portion].
In re claim 2, Sodemann discloses wherein the first and second taxels each comprise a cantilever beam attached to a frame at an attached end, wherein the magnetic portion is located at an unattached end of the cantilever beam [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶23, 35, among others, Table 2, describe pins 10-30 (taxels) attached to base 40 (frame) are cantilever beams. The pins may be fashioned of stainless steel. Table 2 indicates a density of 7800 kg/m3 which corresponds to 400 series stainless steel which is Ferromagnetic, which means the end of the pin includes a magnetic portion].
In re claim 3, Sodemann discloses wherein the first taxel cantilever beam and the second taxel cantilever beam each have different dimensions [¶¶23, among others, describe pins, which function similar to beams, each with a slightly different length, cross-sectional area, and cross-sectional shape, so that each pin has a different resonant frequency].
In re claim 4, Sodemann discloses wherein the first taxel cantilever beam and the second taxel cantilever beam each have different widths [¶¶23, among others, describe varying the cross-section area (width)].
In re claim 5, Sodemann discloses wherein the first taxel cantilever beam and the second taxel cantilever beam each have different masses located at their unattached ends [¶¶23, among others, describe pins, which function similar to beams, each with a slightly different length, cross-sectional area, and cross-sectional shape, as such the mass of the end of each pin with vary].
In re claim 6, Sodemann discloses the first taxel cantilever beam comprises a different material from the second taxel cantilever beam [¶27, among others, describes varying the material used to fabricate the pins to have different resonant frequencies].
In re claim 7, Sodemann discloses the first and second taxels are attached to a single frame [Figs. 1, 2, show pins ##10, 20, 30, 230, attached to single base (frame) 40].
In re claim 8, Sodemann discloses the first and second taxels and the frame are formed by 3D printing techniques [¶¶34, 48, among others, describe 3D printing to form the elements].
In re claim 9, Sodemann discloses a soft ferromagnet [¶¶34, Table 2 describe stainless steel of series 400 which is soft ferromagnetic material].
In re claim 10, Sodemann discloses the first and second taxels each comprise a tactile protrusion arranged to be touchable by a user of the apparatus [¶¶23, 24, among others, describe pins have end which is touched by user for tactile display].
In re claim 11, Sodemann discloses wherein the solenoid has a third electrical input signal at a third frequency; the apparatus further comprising a third taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, located at an end of the solenoid, wherein the third taxel has a third mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first and second mechanical resonance frequencies, such that applying the third electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the third taxel to vibrate [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,27-29, 35, among others, describe 3 pins, having different resonant frequencies, therefore, microcontroller 210 which varies signal to the coil to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display must have at least three signals].
In re claim 12, Sodemann discloses the solenoid has a fourth electrical input signal at a fourth frequency; the apparatus further comprising a fourth taxel, comprising a magnetic portion located above the end of the solenoid, wherein the fourth taxel has a fourth mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first, second and third mechanical resonance frequencies, such that applying the fourth electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the fourth taxel to vibrate [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,27-29, 35, among others, describe 4 pins, having different resonant frequencies, therefore, microcontroller 210 which varies signal to the coil to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display must have at least four signals].
In re claim 13, Sodemann discloses a communicatively coupled to the first taxel and the second taxel, and configured with instructions stored in non-transitory memory that when executed by a processor of the controller cause the controller to apply the first electrical input signal to the solenoid to vibrate the first taxel, and/or apply the second electrical input signal to the solenoid to vibrate the second taxel, and apply the first and second frequencies to vibrate the first taxel and the second taxel, either simultaneously or individually [Fig. 2, shows microcontroller #210 ¶¶27-30, describe microcontroller1 210 which varies signal to create different resonant frequencies to control the plurality of pins in the haptic display].
In re claim 14, Sodemann discloses the controller to control an amplitude of the first and/or second electrical input signal in order to control a vibration amplitude of the first and/or second taxel [Figs. 2 and 7, ¶¶27-30, 59, among others, describe microcontroller 210 which varies signal to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display to produce many frequencies at varying amplitudes simultaneously].
In re claim 15, Sodemann discloses wherein the controller is suitable to control the first and second electrical input signals to each have a relatively higher amplitude when both the first and second electrical input signals are applied to the solenoid simultaneously and is to control the first and second electrical input signals to each have a relatively lower amplitude when the first and second electrical input signals are applied to the solenoid individually [Fig. 2, shows microcontroller #210 ¶¶8, 24, 27-30, describe microcontroller 210 which varies signal to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display to produce many frequencies at varying amplitudes simultaneously].
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0239086 by Do et al. (“Do”).
In re claim 18, Do discloses a taxel array [Fig. 8 #100] comprising: a first taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, the first taxel having a first mechanical resonance frequency such that first taxel vibrates in response to the magnetic portion being energized by a first electromagnetic signal having a first frequency [Fig 8, #110 ¶¶70-78]; and a second taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, the second taxel having a second mechanical resonance frequency such that second taxel vibrates in response to the magnetic portion being energized by a second electromagnetic signal having a second frequency [Fig 8, #110 ¶¶70-78].
In re claim 19, Do discloses a third taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, the third taxel having a third mechanical resonance frequency such that the third taxel vibrates in response to the magnetic portion being energised by a third electromagnetic signal having a third frequency [Fig 8, #110 ¶¶70-78].
In re claim 20, Do discloses a fourth taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, the fourth taxel having a fourth mechanical resonance frequency such that the fourth taxel vibrates in response to the magnetic portion being energised by a fourth electromagnetic signal having a fourth frequency [Fig 8, #110 ¶¶70-78].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Do in view of Sodemann.
In re claim 1, Do discloses an apparatus comprising: a solenoid having a first electrical input signal at a first frequency and a second electrical input signal at a second frequency [Fig. 8, #210, ¶¶70-78]; a first taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, located above an end of the solenoid, such that applying the first electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the first taxel to vibrate [Fig 8, #110 ¶¶70-78]; a second taxel, comprising a magnetic portion located above the end of the solenoid, such that applying the second electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the second taxel to vibrate [Fig 8, #110 ¶¶70-78].
Do does not explicitly teach that the first taxel has a first mechanical resonance frequency and that the second taxel has a second mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first mechanical resonance frequency.
However, Sodemann teaches a tactile display with a plurality of tactile elements including a first taxel has a first mechanical resonance frequency and that the second taxel has a second mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first mechanical resonance frequency [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,23, 24, 27-29, 35].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include vibrating pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 2, Do discloses wherein the first and second taxels each comprise a cantilever beam attached to a frame at an attached end, wherein the magnetic portion is located at an unattached end of the cantilever beam [Fig. 8 ## 10, 110, describe pins 10 (taxels) attached to base (frame) at one end and unattached at other end (cantilever beams). The pins include magnetic particles, which means the end of the pin includes a magnetic portion]. As pointed out above Sodemann also discloses the pins are cantilevered beams.
In re claim 3, Do lacks, but Sodemann teaches, wherein the first taxel cantilever beam and the second taxel cantilever beam each have different dimensions [¶¶23, among others, describe pins, which function similar to beams, each with a slightly different length, cross-sectional area, and cross-sectional shape, so that each pin has a different resonant frequency].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include vibrating pins having varied different dimensions, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 4, Do lacks, but Sodemann teaches, wherein the first taxel cantilever beam and the second taxel cantilever beam each have different widths [¶¶23, describe varying the cross-section area (width)].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include vibrating pins having varied different dimensions, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 5, Do lacks, but Sodemann teaches, wherein the first taxel cantilever beam and the second taxel cantilever beam each have different masses located at their unattached ends [¶¶23 describe pins, which function similar to beams, each with a slightly different length, cross-sectional area, and cross-sectional shape, as such the mass of the end of each pin with vary].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include vibrating pins having varied different dimensions, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins (and therefore masses), as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 6, Do lacks, but Sodemann teaches, the first taxel cantilever beam comprises a different material from the second taxel cantilever beam [¶27 describes varying the material used to fabricate the pins to have different resonant frequencies].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include vary the materials of the pins, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 7, Do discloses the first and second taxels are attached to a single frame [Fig. 8 ## 10, 110, describe multiple pins 10 (taxels) attached to base (frame)].
In re claim 8, Do lacks, but Sodemann teaches, the first and second taxels and the frame are formed by 3D printing techniques [¶¶34, 48, among others, describe 3D printing to form the elements].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Do to create the pins using 3D printing, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an efficient mass production.
In re claim 9, Do discloses a soft ferromagnet [¶53].
In re claim 10, Do discloses the first and second taxels each comprise a tactile protrusion arranged to be touchable by a user of the apparatus [Fig. 8 ## shows projections 10 the ends of which protrude for touching by user ¶¶67].
In re claim 11, Do teaches multiple taxels (e.g., 9 per solenoid thus a third taxel). Do lacks, but Sodemann teaches a third electrical input signal at a third frequency; the apparatus further comprising a third taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, located at an end of the solenoid, wherein the third taxel has a third mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first and second mechanical resonance frequencies, such that applying the third electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the third taxel to vibrate [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,27-29, 35, among others, describe 3 pins, having different resonant frequencies, therefore, microcontroller 210 which varies signal to the coil to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display must have at least three signals]. Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include 3 vibrating pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 12, Do teaches multiple taxels (e.g., 9 per solenoid thus a 4th taxel). Do lacks, but Sodemann teaches a fourth electrical input signal at a fourth frequency; the apparatus further comprising a fourth taxel, comprising a magnetic portion located above the end of the solenoid, wherein the fourth taxel has a fourth mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first, second and third mechanical resonance frequencies, such that applying the fourth electrical input signal to the solenoid causes the fourth taxel to vibrate [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,27-29, 35, among others, describe 4 pins, having different resonant frequencies, therefore, microcontroller 210 which varies signal to the coil to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display must have at least four signals].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include 4 vibrating pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 13, Do discloses a haptic display with an array of pins controlled by controlling at least one of the intensity, direction and frequency of a magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generator 200, but does not explicitly disclose a controller.
However, Sodemann teaches a communicatively coupled to the first taxel and the second taxel, and configured with instructions stored in non-transitory memory that when executed by a processor of the controller cause the controller to apply the first electrical input signal to the solenoid to vibrate the first taxel, and/or apply the second electrical input signal to the solenoid to vibrate the second taxel, and apply the first and second frequencies to vibrate the first taxel and the second taxel, either simultaneously or individually [Fig. 2, shows microcontroller #210 ¶¶27-30, describe microcontroller 210 which varies signal to create different resonant frequencies to control the plurality of pins in the haptic display].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of Do to include a microcontroller, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide a simple and cheap option to control output of the display.
In re claim 14, Do discloses a haptic display with an array of pins controlled by controlling at least one of the intensity, direction and frequency of a magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generator 200, but does not explicitly disclose a controller.
However, Sodemann teaches discloses the controller to control an amplitude of the first and/or second electrical input signal in order to control a vibration amplitude of the first and/or second taxel [Figs. 2 and 7, ¶¶27-30, 59, among others, describe microcontroller 210 which varies signal to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display to produce many frequencies at varying amplitudes simultaneously].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of Do to include a microcontroller, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide a simple and cheap option to control output of the display.
In re claim 15, Do discloses a haptic display with an array of pins controlled by controlling at least one of the intensity, direction and frequency of a magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generator 200, but does not explicitly disclose a controller.
However, Sodemann wherein the controller is suitable to control the first and second electrical input signals to each have a relatively higher amplitude when both the first and second electrical input signals are applied to the solenoid simultaneously and is to control the first and second electrical input signals to each have a relatively lower amplitude when the first and second electrical input signals are applied to the solenoid individually [Fig. 2, shows microcontroller #210 ¶¶8, 24, 27-30, describe microcontroller 210 which varies signal to create different resonant frequencies to control the haptic display to produce many frequencies at varying amplitudes simultaneously].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of Do to include a microcontroller, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide a simple and cheap option to control output of the display.
In re claim 16, Do discloses a vibrotactile display comprising a plurality of solenoids arranged in an array [Fig. 8 #210], wherein each solenoid has a first electrical input signal at a first frequency and a second electrical input signal at a second frequency [Fig. 8, #210, ¶¶70-78]; a first taxel, comprising a magnetic portion, located above an end of each solenoid, wherein the first taxel has a first mechanical resonance frequency such that applying the first electrical input signal to each solenoid causes the first taxel to vibrate [Fig. 8, #110, ¶¶70-78]; a second taxel, comprising a magnetic portion located above the end of each solenoid, wherein the second taxel has a second mechanical resonance frequency, such that applying the second electrical input signal to each solenoid causes the second taxel to vibrate [Fig. 8, #110, ¶¶70-78].
Do does not explicitly teach that the first taxel has a first mechanical resonance frequency and that the second taxel has a second mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first mechanical resonance frequency.
However, Sodemann teaches a tactile display with a plurality of tactile elements including a first taxel has a first mechanical resonance frequency and that the second taxel has a second mechanical resonance frequency, different from the first mechanical resonance frequency [Figs. 1, 2, ## 10, 20, 30, 230, ¶¶4-7,23, 24, 27-29, 35].
Do and Sodemann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile output devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibrating pins 10 of Do to include vibrating pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins, as taught by Sodemann, in order to provide an improved haptic display, by improving resolution of the display, see, e.g., ¶¶3, 35.
In addition, Do and Sodemann each teach tactile displays with pins of an array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute one type of pin array (pins 10 of Do) with another type of pin array (pins having varied resonant frequencies by varying the length, cross-sectional area, material, and cross-sectional shape of the pins of Sodemann), to achieve the predictable result of providing a varied tactile response to a user.
In re claim 17, Do discloses the apparatus comprises one of a steering wheel, a vehicle seat bolster, a computer controller, a games console controller and a surgical simulation instrument [¶17].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 13, 2025 have been fully considered.
The objection to the drawings is partially withdrawn. The objection is maintained for the reasons given above which were not addressed by Applicant’s amendments or remarks.
The objection to claims 2 and 13-15 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The interpretation of claims 13-15 under 112(f) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 13-15 under 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to anticipation and obviousness of claims 1-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 A microcontroller contains one or more processor cores along with memory and programmable input/output peripherals.