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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delson et al (US 2012/0232780).
In Reference to Claim 33
(See Del, Figures 1 and 7A-7B)
Delson et al. (Del) discloses:
A resonant actuator assembly comprising:
a support structure (134) (See Del, Paragraph [0174]);
a movable part (132) that is capable of relative motion with respect to the support structure (134) (See Del, Paragraph [0174]); and
an actuator arrangement (136) arranged to drive relative motion of the movable part (132), the resonant actuator assembly being arranged to provide a restoring force to the movable part (132) on displacement from an equilibrium position with respect to the support structure (134), and the actuator arrangement (136) being arranged to drive the relative motion of the movable part (132) at a resonance of the resonant actuator assembly (See Del, Paragraphs [0174]-[0175]),
the restoring force being non-linear with the displacement. (See Del, Paragraph [0175] w/respect to non-linear).
In Reference to Claim 34
(See Del, Figures 1 and 7A-7B)
Del discloses:
wherein the resonant actuator assembly is arranged to provide the restoring force with a stiffness that increases when a magnitude of the displacement from the equilibrium position increases. (See Del, Figure 1 w/respect to force & Paragraphs [0174]-[0175]).
In Reference to Claim 35
(See Del, Figures 1 and 7A-7B)
Del discloses:
wherein the resonant actuator assembly is arranged to provide the restoring force with an increase in stiffness when a magnitude of the displacement from the equilibrium position increases above a predetermined threshold. (See Del, Figure 1 w/respect to force & Paragraphs [0174]-[0175]).
The Examiner notes that the threshold may be any value greater than 0 displacement.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howarth et al (WO 2017/208003).
In Reference to Claim 49
(See Howarth, Figures 18-28)
Howarth et al. (How) discloses:
A resonant actuator assembly comprising:
a support structure (See How, Page 18, Line 31 – Page 19, Line 3);
a movable part (102) that is capable of relative motion with respect to the support structure (See How, Page 18, Line 31 – Page 19, Line 3); and
an actuator arrangement (113,105) comprising at least one SMA wire arranged to drive the relative motion of the movable part (102) (See How, Page 19, Lines 1-11),
the resonant actuator assembly being arranged to provide a restoring force (103,104) to the movable part (102) on displacement from an equilibrium position with respect to the support structure, and the actuator arrangement (113,105) being arranged to drive the relative motion of the movable part at a resonance of the resonant actuator assembly. (See How, Page 19, Lines 1-15).
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.
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) 36 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delson et al (US 2012/0232780) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2020/0076287).
In Reference to Claim 36
Del discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the resonant actuator assembly comprises a resilient bumper between the movable part and the support structure, the resilient bumper being arranged to be disengaged when the magnitude of the displacement from the equilibrium position is below the predetermined threshold and to be engaged to provide the restoring force with the increase in stiffness when the magnitude of the displacement from the equilibrium position increases from the predetermined threshold.
Takahashi (Taka) discloses an electromagnetic vibration actuator device. (See Taka, Abstract). Taka discloses resilient bumpers arranged at opposing end faces which are engaged when the movable part is displaced. (See Taka, Paragraph [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have add the bumpers of Taka, as both references are directed towards electromagnetic vibration actuator devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the bumpers of Taka would have prevented damage from direct collision with the support structure. (See Taka, Paragraph [0102]).
In Reference to Claim 44
Del discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the resonant actuator assembly further comprises a resilient element connected between the movable part and the support structure, and arranged to provide at least part of said restoring force.
Takahashi (Taka) discloses an electromagnetic vibration actuator device. (See Taka, Abstract). Taka discloses resilient bumpers arranged at opposing end faces which are engaged when the movable part is displaced. (See Taka, Paragraph [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the bumpers of Taka, as both references are directed towards electromagnetic vibration actuator devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the bumpers of Taka would have prevented damage from direct collision with the support structure. (See Taka, Paragraph [0102]).
The Examiner notes that the bumper of Taka would provide at least some opposing (restoring) force.
In Reference to Claim 45
Del discloses the claimed invention except:
further comprising a bearing arrangement arranged to guide relative motion of the movable part with respect to the support structure, wherein the bearing arrangement is arranged to provide no restoring force, or wherein the bearing arrangement is arranged to provide a restoring force that is at least an order of magnitude less than the restoring force provided by the actuator arrangement, or wherein the bearing arrangement is arranged to provide a restoring force that is at least an order of magnitude more than the restoring force provided by the actuator arrangement.
Takahashi (Taka) discloses an electromagnetic vibration actuator device. (See Taka, Abstract). Taka discloses a bearing arrangement arranged to guide relative motion of the movable part with respect to the support structure, wherein the bearing arrangement is arranged to provide no restoring force. (See Taka, Paragraphs [0064] and [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to added the shaft and bearings of Taka, as both references are directed towards electromagnetic vibration actuator devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the shaft and bearing configuration of Taka would have allowed for sufficient vibrations to occur without unwanted collisions with the support structure. (See Taka, Paragraph [0089]).
Claim(s) 38, 43, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delson et al (US 2012/0232780) in view of Longo et al. (US 2019/0004603).
In Reference to Claim 38
Del discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the actuator arrangement comprises at least one SMA wire and the actuator assembly further comprises a drive circuit arranged to supply drive signals to the at least one SMA wire, and wherein the drive signals comprises pulses at a resonant frequency of the resonance.
Long et al. (Long) discloses a dual spring haptic vibration device. (See Long, Abstract). Long discloses actuating a moveable member mounted between dual springs with at least one SMA wire utilizing a drive circuit to supply drive signals. (See Long, Paragraphs [0025]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used at least one SMA to actuate the moveable part of Del, as both references are directed towards dual spring haptic vibration devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using SMA actuation in place of electromagnet actuation would be a simple substitution of one known form of actuating a haptic device for another that would yield the predictable result of compactly and accurately controlling vibration feedback of the haptic device and that such actuation would allow for a larger frequency range in a more compact form. (See Long, Paragraph [0001]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that controlling the SMA actuation via resonant frequency pulses would allow for large controlled vibrations to provide detailed haptic feedback without the need for sensors. (See Del, Paragraph [0024]).
In Reference to Claim 43
The Del-Long combination discloses:
wherein the actuator arrangement comprises at least one SMA wire arranged to drive the relative motion of the movable part in a first direction along a movement axis and no SMA wires arranged to drive the relative motion of the movable part in a second direction opposite to the first direction. (See Long, Figure 3, Paragraphs [0025]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used at least one SMA to actuate the moveable part of Del, as both references are directed towards dual spring haptic vibration devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using SMA actuation in place of electromagnet actuation would be a simple substitution of one known form of actuating a haptic device for another that would yield the predictable result of compactly and accurately controlling vibration feedback of the haptic device and that such actuation would allow for a larger frequency range in a more compact form. (See Long, Paragraph [0001]).
In Reference to Claim 48
The Del-Long combination discloses:
wherein the resonant frequency is at least 10Hz, and/or wherein the range of displacement is at least 10m. (See Del, Paragraph [0276]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50-52 are allowed.
Claims 37, 39-42 and 46-47 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, “wherein the resonant actuator assembly is arranged to provide the restoring force with a stiffness that increases when a magnitude of the displacement from the equilibrium position increases so as to flatten a histogram of position against time over the resonance period compared to be an equivalent system where the restoring force has a constant stiffness.” in claim 37; “wherein the actuator arrangement comprises opposed pairs of SMA wires, the SMA wires of each pair being inclined at equal and opposite acute angles with respect to the movement axis of the relative motion of the movable part so as to provide balanced components of force perpendicular to the movement axis.” in claim 42; “further comprising a position detection circuit arranged to derive a measure of the relative position of the movable part with respect to the support structure, wherein the resonant actuator assembly further comprises a position sensor arranged to sense the relative position of the movable part from the position sensor, and the position detection circuit is arranged to derive the measure of the relative position of the movable part from the output of the position sensor, or wherein the actuator arrangement comprises at least one SMA wire, the resonant actuator assembly further comprises a resistance measurement circuit arranged to measure the resistance of the at least one SMA wire, and the position detection circuit is arranged to derive the measure of the relative position of the movable part from the output of the measured resistance.” in claim 46; “wherein the movable part is an optical component, and wherein the resonant actuator assembly is arranged to scan a beam of light.” in claim 47; and “a sensor for sensing light, the sensor being configured to provide data dependent on the sensed light” in combination with “the actuator arrangement being arranged to drive the relative motion of the movable part at a resonance of the resonant actuator assembly, the restoring force being substantially linear or non-linear with the displacement; and wherein the sensor is configured to cease providing data when the movable part has moved within less than 10% of the movement range towards each end of the said movement range.” in claim 50.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jackson, Brown, Richards, Ho, and Howarth show actuation devices within the general state of the art of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746