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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10 and 21-27 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 reads “focussed towards” but should read “focused towards”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
In response to Appellant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Also, KSR forecloses the argument that a specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation is required to support a finding of obviousness. See the Board Decision Ex parte Smith, --USPQ2d--, slip op. at 20, (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. June 25, 2007) (citing KSR, 82 USPQ2s at 1396). The MPEP states several exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness, including the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As stated previously, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to combine the elements cited in the prior art because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately with predictable results. In the instant case, the cited prior art references were available in the field at the time of the purported invention. The Appellant merely implemented a variation of the existing elements present within the prior art in establishing his/her own invention, either through substitution and/or combination of such prior existing elements. Moreover, a prior art reference that “teaches away” from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness; however, “the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Furthermore, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Applicant states “A POSITA implementing the teachings of EBEFORS would be motivated to place the focal point directly on the user's skin (the second focus point of the claim) to maximize the vibrotactile effect from radiation pressure”, however examiner has not found anywhere in Ebefors discloser that Ebefors teaches that the focal point must or is required to be placed directly on the skin in order for the invention to function.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In use, the first focus point is intentionally not on the skin whilst the second focus point is on the skin”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further regarding applicants’ arguments, applicant states “The Examiner's combination with LEE and KAMIGAKI does not cure the deficiencies of EBEFORS.”, examiner has not used a reference “KAMIGAKI” in the most previous rejection mailed out 06/09/2025 thus examiner is unable to respond to this argument. Further clarification from applicant is required in order for the examiner to properly address this argument of the reference “KAMIGAKI”.
Regarding applicants’ arguments to newly added limitation of "varying the first focus point to modulate a distance of the first focus point from the second focus point.". These arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the references (Itoh (EP 0194897 A2)) cited in the most current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210294419 A1) in view of Ebefors (US 20210162457 A1) and Itoh (EP 0194897 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method comprising focusing a first acoustic transducer (transducers 160 of array 110) and a second acoustic transducer (transducers 160 of array 110) towards a first focus point (focal points) to generate an acoustic stream (create steered beams at the array 110 to produce focal points of ultrasonic energy that provide sufficient radiation pressure) targeted towards a second focus point (focal points). (Paragraphs 53, Claims 7-9)
Lee also teaches wherein the first acoustic transducer (transducers 160 of array 110) and the second acoustic transducer (transducers 160 of array 110) focus acoustic waves to form pressure radiation. (Paragraphs 53-55, 46, 35-36, Fig.1A)
Lee does not explicitly teach to form pressure gradients and varying a location of the first focus point to modulate a distance of the first focus point from the second focus point and wherein the acoustic transducers create a second focus point on the targeted skin to produce vibrotactile stimulation.
Ebefors teaches to form pressure gradients (achieve a high pressure at the focal point and a low pressure in surrounding areas). (Paragraphs 101, Claim 62, Fig.8)
Ebefors also teaches wherein the acoustic transducers create a second focus point (230k, 702) on the targeted skin to produce vibrotactile stimulation. (Paragraphs 51-54, 101, Figs.7-8)
Itoh teaches varying a location (electrically varied) of the first focus point (point of focus) to modulate a distance of the first focus point from the second focus point (distance from the transducer to the point of focus can be electrically varied) (driving said transducer (13) for changing position and/or direction of ultrasound beams transmitted and received by said ultrasound transducers (13)). (Page.2, lines 23-28, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate to form pressure gradients and wherein the acoustic transducers create a second focus point on the targeted skin to produce vibrotactile stimulation as taught by Ebefors in order to generate the acoustic-potential field of ultrasonic waves and further modify Lee to incorporate varying a location of the first focus point to modulate a distance of the first focus point from the second focus point as taught by Itoh in order to accurately focus the ultrasound beam on a deep target.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control location of the acoustic air stream (focal points of ultrasound energy are created through constructive interference amplified and steered through software driven transducer control by driver 120). (Paragraphs 52-55, Figs.1A, 2A-2B)
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control speed of the acoustic stream. (Paragraphs 52-55, Figs.1A, 2A-2B)
Regarding claim 5, Lee does not explicitly teach spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control perceived temperature of the acoustic stream.
Ebefors teaches spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control perceived temperature of the acoustic stream. (Paragraphs 50, 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control perceived temperature of the acoustic stream as taught by Ebefors in order to achieve the best possible user experience of the feedback.
Regarding claim 6, Lee does not explicitly teach spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control shape of the acoustic stream.
Ebefors teaches spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control shape of the acoustic stream. (Paragraphs 50, 62-63, Fig.8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate spatiotemporally modulating acoustic field gradients to control shape of the acoustic stream as taught by Ebefors in order to obtain the best possible focus of the emitted acoustic energy.
Regarding claim 7, Lee does not explicitly teach temporal and spatial multiplexing with a first modulated control point and a second modulated control points.
Ebefors teaches temporal and spatial multiplexing with a first modulated control point and a second modulated control points. (Paragraphs 67-70, Fig.9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate temporal and spatial multiplexing with a first modulated control point and a second modulated control points as taught by Ebefors in order to transmit a large number of signals to a single medium and use less total energy to achieve contactless capturing/trapping, levitation and/or manipulation of an object of a certain weight.
Regarding claim 8, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is focused.
Ebefors teaches wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is focused. (Paragraphs 6, 50, 54)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is focused as taught by Ebefors in order to properly emit the signal/energy to a user such that the skin of a user feels the signal/energy.
Regarding claim 9, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is unfocused.
Ebefors teaches wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is unfocused. (Paragraph 101, Claim 62, Fig.8) Ebefors teaches creating a high pressure at the focal point and a low pressure in surrounding areas (unfocused).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is unfocused as taught by Ebefors in order to generate the acoustic-potential field of ultrasonic waves.
Claim(s) 10 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Itoh.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a system comprising: an ultrasonic phased array (160) comprising focusing a first acoustic transducer (transducers 160 of array 110) and a second acoustic transducer (transducers 160 of array 110) focused towards a first focus point to generate an acoustics stream (create steered beams at the array 110 to produce focal points of ultrasonic energy that provide sufficient radiation pressure) targeted towards a second focus point (focal points). (Paragraphs 53, Claims 7-9)
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the first focus point is varied to modulate a distance of the first focus point from the second focus point.
Itoh teaches wherein the first focus point is varied to modulate a distance of the first focus point from the second focus point. (Page.2, lines 23-28, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein the first focus point is varied to modulate a distance of the first focus point from the second focus point as taught by Itoh in order to accurately focus the ultrasound beam on a deep target.
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control location of the acoustic stream. (Paragraphs 52-55, Figs.1A, 2A-2B)
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control speed of the acoustic stream. (Paragraphs 52-55, Figs.1A, 2A-2B)
Regarding claim 23, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control perceived temperature of the acoustic stream.
Ebefors teaches wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control perceived temperature of the acoustic stream. (Paragraphs 50, 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control perceived temperature of the acoustic stream as taught by Ebefors in order to achieve the best possible user experience of the feedback.
Regarding claim 24, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control shape of the acoustic stream.
Ebefors teaches wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control shape of the acoustic stream. (Paragraphs 50, 62-63, Fig.8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein acoustic field gradients are spatiotemporally modulated to control shape of the acoustic stream as taught by Ebefors in order to obtain the best possible focus of the emitted acoustic energy.
Regarding claim 25, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a first modulated control point and a second modulated control point are temporally and spatially multiplexed.
Ebefors teaches wherein a first modulated control point and a second modulated control point are temporally and spatially multiplexed. (Paragraphs 67-70, Fig.9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein a first modulated control point and a second modulated control point are temporally and spatially multiplexed as taught by Ebefors in order to transmit a large number of signals to a single medium and use less total energy to achieve contactless capturing/trapping, levitation and/or manipulation of an object of a certain weight.
Regarding claim 26, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is focused
Ebefors teaches wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is focused. (Paragraphs 6, 50, 54)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and the second modulated control point is focused as taught by Ebefors in order to properly emit the signal/energy to a user such that the skin of a user feels the signal/energy.
Regarding claim 27, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and second modulated control point is unfocused.
Ebefors teaches wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and second modulated control point is unfocused. (Paragraph 101, Claim 62, Fig.8) Ebefors teaches creating a high pressure at the focal point and a low pressure in surrounding areas (unfocused).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Lee to incorporate wherein at least one of the first modulated control point and second modulated control point is unfocused as taught by Ebefors in order to generate the acoustic-potential field of ultrasonic waves.
Conclusion
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 ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645