DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 26 January 2026. Claims 1 has been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 3, 4, and 6 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 remain pending in this application. Claim 1 has been examined on its merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 4, filed 26 January 2026, with respect to objected claim 2 is moot in light of the cancellation of claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 4, filed 26 January 2026, with respect to rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot in light of the cancellation of claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 5, filed 26 January 2026, with respect to rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed 26 January 2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as follows:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277614 A1 (hereinafter Larimer) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0154489 A1 (hereinafter Sone) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0034282 A1 (hereinafter Quaid) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0228582 A1 (hereinafter Yerkes).
Rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 24 September 2025 is moot in light of the cancellation of claim 2.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277614 A1 (hereinafter Larimer) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0154489 A1 (hereinafter Sone) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0034282 A1 (hereinafter Quaid) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0228582 A1 (hereinafter Yerkes).
As per claim 1, Larimer substantially teaches the applicant’s claimed invention. Larimer teaches the limitations of a control device (Fig. 1, element 142; i.e. a machine engine control module (ECM)) for controlling a tool (Fig. 1, element 104; i.e. an implement) having a manual handle (pg. 1, par. [0014], pg. 2, par. [0017], [0019] and [0020] and Fig. 1, element 138; i.e. one or more operator input devices), the control device (Fig. 1, element 142) comprising:
a processor (pg. 2, par. [0020]; i.e. “Exemplary architectures for implementing an ECM may include general purpose processors, application specific integrated circuits, programmable logic devices and the likes.”),
wherein the processor is configured to:
identify a state of the tool (pg. 1, par. [0013], pg. 2, par. [0021], and Fig. 1, element 102; [0021]:“ The sensors 154, 156 and 158 may be configured to send feedback signals based on the sensed pressure and/or the displacement, to the machine ECM 142 via the valve ECM 144.” and [0024]: “… the machine ECM 142 may activate the haptic technology based device 167 to provide the tactile feedback on the operator input device 138.”);
cause haptic feedback generated in the manual handle (pg. 2, par. [0017] and Fig. 1, element 138; i.e. “The operator station 110 includes one or more operator input devices 138 configured to receive or transmit various inputs, from an operator, indicative of a desired movement of the implement 104 and/or the machine 100. The operator input devices 138, which may be embodied as joysticks.”) based on the state of the machine tool (pg. 3, par. [0024]; i.e. “… the machine ECM 142 may activate the haptic technology based device 167 to provide the tactile feedback on the operator input device 138.”);
set action definition data that defines the haptic feedback outputted to the manual handle (pg. 3, par. [0027] and [0028] and Fig. 2, element 168; i.e. [0028]: “… the operator may further customize the tactile feedback 168 in the array 162. In one embodiment, the programmable user interface 160 may include additional programmable tabs for customizing the feedback options.”), the action definition data associates the state of the tool with a type of the haptic feedback (pg. 3, par. [0028]; i.e. “… the operator may further customize the tactile feedback 168 in the array 162. In one embodiment, the programmable user interface 160 may include additional programmable tabs for customizing the feedback options. For example, the operator may select to receive a low intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a low pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158. Similarly, the operator may select to receive a high intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a high pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158.”);
select the type of the haptic feedback based on the action definition data and the state of the tool (pg. 3, par. [0027] and [0028] and Fig. 2, element 168; [0028]: “For example, the operator may select to receive a low intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a low pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158. Similarly, the operator may select to receive a high intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a high pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158. The operator may also select any one of the operator input devices 138, such as the joystick, steering wheel, pedals, seat etc., to receive the tactile feedback.”); and
decide a parameter related to the haptic feedback based on the type of the haptic feedback, wherein the selected type of the haptic feedback includes resistance tactile sense (pg. 3, par. [0027] and [0028] and Fig. 2, element 168; [0027]: “For example, on activation of the tab for tactile feedback 168, the programmable user interface 160 may be configured to communicate with and send a signal indicative of operator selected tactile feedback option to the machine ECM 142. In response, the machine ECM 142 activates the haptic technology based device 168 of the operator input device 138 to provide the tactile feedback based on the feedback signals from the sensors 154, 156 and 158.” and [0028]: “For example, the operator may select to receive a low intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a low pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158. Similarly, the operator may select to receive a high intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a high pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158. The operator may also select any one of the operator input devices 138, such as the joystick, steering wheel, pedals, seat etc., to receive the tactile feedback.”), and
wherein the processor generates the haptic feedback using the parameter including haptic interaction of the manual handle (pg. 3, par. [0027] and [0028] and Fig. 2, element 168; [0027]: “For example, on activation of the tab for tactile feedback 168, the programmable user interface 160 may be configured to communicate with and send a signal indicative of operator selected tactile feedback option to the machine ECM 142. In response, the machine ECM 142 activates the haptic technology based device 168 of the operator input device 138 to provide the tactile feedback based on the feedback signals from the sensors 154, 156 and 158.” and [0028]: “For example, the operator may select to receive a low intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a low pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158. Similarly, the operator may select to receive a high intensity tactile feedback on the operator input devices 138, based on a high pressure detected by the sensors 154, 156 and 158. The operator may also select any one of the operator input devices 138, such as the joystick, steering wheel, pedals, seat etc., to receive the tactile feedback.”).
Not explicitly taught are a numerical control device;
a machine tool; and
generate the haptic feedback so that a physical quantity including torque of the manual handle increases.
However Sone, in an analogous art of numerical control (pg. 1, par. [0002] and [0012]), teaches the missing limitation of a numerical control device (pgs. 1-2, par. [0018]; i.e. “… A numerical controller of the present invention controls a machine tool in accordance with a machining program.”); and
a machine tool (pgs. 1-2, par. [0018]; i.e. “… A numerical controller of the present invention controls a machine tool in accordance with a machining program.”) for the purpose of monitoring a state of a numerical controller (pg. 4, par. [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Larimer to include the addition of the limitations of a numerical control device; and a machine tool to improve operability (Sone: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Larimer in view of Sone does not expressly teach generate the haptic feedback so that a physical quantity including torque of the manual handle increases.
However Quaid, in an analogous of a haptic device (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the limitation of generate a haptic feedback so that a physical quantity includes torque (pg. 13, par. [0103]; i.e. “The haptic interaction forces and/or torques from the selected segment may be used to guide haptic device 113 in a desired direction away from, toward, or aligned with physical object 114 to be sculpted. The haptic interaction forces and/or torques may be repulsive, attractive, frictional, viscous, impulsive, detent, regulatory (for example designed to maintain cutting speeds or feed rates), and/or the like. If desired, the haptic interaction forces and/or torques may be calculated using a mathematical, control theory, or machine learning algorithm.”) for the purpose of applying haptic interaction (pg. 13, par. [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Larimer in view of Sone to include the addition of the limitation of generate a haptic feedback so that a physical quantity includes torque to provide greater flexibility to a user while guiding a tool to a target area (Quaid: pg. 10, par. [0085]).
Larimer in view of Sone in further view of Quaid does not expressly teach generate the haptic feedback so that a physical quantity increases.
However Yerkes, in an analogous art of haptic feedback (pgs. 33-34, par. [0283]-[0284]; i.e. tactile feedback), teaches the missing limitation of generate a haptic feedback so that a physical quantity increases (pgs. 33-34; par. [0283] and [0284]; i.e. [0284]: “In some embodiments, the amplitude and/or duration of the tactile output is increased as the size, weight, and/or mass of the virtual object increases.”) for the purpose of providing a user with feedback to indicate information (pg. 34, par. [0284]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Larimer in view of Sone in further view of Quaid to include the addition of the limitation of generate a haptic feedback so that a physical quantity increases to advantageously enable a user to user a device more quickly and efficiently (Yerkes: pg. 34, par. [0284]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to haptic feedback.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0095369 A1 discloses an apparatus capable of providing various types of operational sensations obtained when operating an interface apparatus.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0216763 A1 discloses a control interface of a rotary control interface or knob for a motor vehicle enabling haptic feedback to be transmitted to a user, such as a force of variable resistance.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0228028 A1 discloses a haptic information presentation system uses a human sensory characteristic or illusion to control a physical quantity.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0224854 A1 discloses a control device for industrial machines having controlled motion drives for machine components.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117