DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 15 November 2022 and 8 November 2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive and appears incomplete. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
An apparatus, comprising:
a housing;
a first cavity defined in [[the]]a material of the housing;
a piezoelectric actuator mounted within the first cavity; and
a dissipation opening defined in the material of the housing that increases air flow from [[the cavity]]the first cavity.
7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the air flowing through the dissipation opening has [[the]]an effect of reducing pressure in the housing.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the reducing pressure in the housing has [[the]]an effect of increasing [[the]]an amplitude of the haptic vibration.
10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the material of the housing is a substrate; wherein the dissipation opening is an open channel in [[the]]an edge of the substrate.
11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the material of the housing is a substrate; wherein the dissipation opening comprises a through passage in [[the]]a thickness of the substrate.
13. An apparatus, comprising:
a substrate in a capacitance module;
a first cavity in the substrate;
a first housing in the first cavity;
a piezoelectric actuator in [[the housing]]the first housing; and
a dissipation opening defined in [[the housing]]the first housing that increases air flow from the first cavity to the outside of the apparatus.
14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the increasing air flow has [[the]]an effect of increasing [[the]]an amplitude of a vibration from the piezoelectric actuator.
19. An apparatus, comprising:
a housing;
a cavity defined in [[the]]a material of the housing;
a haptic actuator mounted within the cavity; and
a dissipation opening defined in the material of the housing that increases air flow from the cavity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallman et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210168229).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a housing (1802);
a first cavity (1824) defined in the material of the housing (1802);
a piezoelectric actuator (1804) mounted within the first cavity (1824); and
a dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802) defined in the material of the housing (1802) that allows air flow ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802 to allow air to pass into and out of the device 1800) from the cavity (1824).
Kallman et al. does not explicitly disclose that the dissipation opening “increases air flow from the cavity.”
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known usage of cavities and air passages in the housing of the electronic devices and by ascertainable routine experimentation and optimization to increase air flow from the cavities for the purpose of providing proper thermal dissipation in order to protect the duration of functioning of the electronic components inside the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the apparatus (1800) is a capacitance module (capacitive touch sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472, FIG. 25) discloses the housing (2500) is comprised within a layer (2503, 2505) of the capacitance module (capacitive touch sensors).
Regarding claim 4, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472, FIG. 25) discloses the housing (1802) is a substrate (The logic board may include a substrate, and processors, memory, and other circuit elements coupled to the substrate.) in the capacitance module (capacitive touch sensors).
Regarding claim 5, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472, FIG. 20D) discloses the housing (1802) is attached to a rigid structure (the stiffness or structural rigidity of the bridge portion) of a capacitance module (capacitive touch sensors).
Regarding claim 6, Kallman et al. (e. g. see [0139], FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472, FIG. 20D) discloses the piezoelectric actuator (1804) is configured to generate a haptic vibration ([0139] When the coil(s) are energized, the coil(s) may cause the mass to move, which results in a force being imparted on the device 200. The motion of the mass may be configured to cause a vibration, pulse, tap, or other tactile output detectable via an exterior surface of the device 200. The haptic actuator 222 may be configured to move the mass linearly) such that the haptic vibration vibrates throughout the material of the housing (1802).
Regarding claim 9, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802 to allow air to pass into and out of the device 1800) connects the first cavity (1824) to an outside surface of the housing (1802).
Regarding claim 10, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the material of the housing (1802) is a substrate (sheet substrate); wherein the dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802 to allow air to pass into and out of the device 1800) is an open channel (The sound waves may be redirected through a channel) in the edge of the substrate (The serpentine-like path 2006 that is defined by the various channel portions).
Regarding claim 11, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the material of the housing (1802) is a substrate (sheet substrate); wherein the dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802 to allow air to pass into and out of the device 1800) comprises a through passage (the housing includes multiple passages or holes 921 extending through the side wall of the housing) in the thickness of the substrate (sheet substrate).
Regarding claim 12, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses a second cavity (another section of 1824) defined in the material of the housing (1802), wherein the dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802 to allow air to pass into and out of the device 1800) connects the first cavity (first section of 1824) to the second cavity (another section of 1824, in FIG. 18, the cavity 1824 goes around different components to form multiple sections).
Regarding independent claim 13, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate in a capacitance module (touch sensor layers (e.g., capacitive electrode layers, spacer layers, etc.));
a first cavity (1824) in the substrate (capacitive electrode layers);
a first housing (1802) in the first cavity (recessed regions 1824);
a piezoelectric actuator (1804) in the housing (1802); and
a dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802) defined in the housing that allows air flow from the first cavity (1824) to the outside of the apparatus ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802 to allow air to pass into and out of the device 1800).
Kallman et al. does not explicitly disclose that the dissipation opening “increases air flow from the cavity to the outside of the apparatus.”
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known usage of cavities and air passages in the housing of the electronic devices and by ascertainable routine experimentation and optimization to increase air flow from the cavities for the purpose of providing proper thermal dissipation in order to protect the duration of functioning of the electronic components inside the housing.
Regarding claim 15, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses a second cavity (another recessed regions of recessed regions 1824) in the substrate (capacitive electrode layers), wherein the dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802) connects the first cavity (one of recessed regions 1824) to the second cavity (another recessed regions of recessed regions 1824).
Regarding claim 16, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the dissipation opening connects the first cavity (1824) to another substrate (touch sensor layers (e.g., capacitive electrode layers, spacer layers, etc.)) in the capacitance module (capacitive electrode layers).
Regarding claim 17, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the substrate (touch sensor layers (e.g., capacitive electrode layers, spacer layers, etc.)) is a component layer (layer of electrodes, of spacer, of sensors, of battery, of logic board, etc.) in the capacitance module (capacitive electrode layers).
Regarding claim 18, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the substrate (touch sensor layers (e.g., capacitive electrode layers, spacer layers, etc.)) is a shield layer ([0531] The logic board 2300 may also include a shroud 2306, which may act as a shield (e.g., an EMI shield) and/or protective cover for the logic board 2300.) in the capacitance module (capacitive electrode layers).
Regarding independent claim 19, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a housing (1802);
a cavity (1824) defined in the material of the housing (1802);
a haptic actuator (1804) mounted within the cavity (1824); and
a dissipation opening ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802) defined in the material of the housing (1802) allows air flow ([0468] an opening in the housing 1802 to allow air to pass into and out of the device 1800) from the cavity (1824).
Kallman et al. does not explicitly disclose that the dissipation opening “increases air flow from the cavity.”
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known usage of cavities and air passages in the housing of the electronic devices and by ascertainable routine experimentation and optimization to increase air flow from the cavities for the purpose of providing proper thermal dissipation in order to protect the duration of functioning of the electronic components inside the housing.
Regarding claim 20, Kallman et al. (e. g. see FIG. 18 and [0468]-[0472) discloses the haptic actuator is a piezoelectric actuator.
Claims 7-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallman et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210168229) in view of Moskowitz et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240112599).
Regarding claim 7, Kallman et al. does not explicitly disclose the air flowing through the dissipation opening has the effect of reducing pressure in the housing.
However, Moskowitz et al. (e.g. see FIG. 12, FIG. 13, [0062], [0063]) teaches the air flowing through the dissipation opening (pneumatic channels) has the effect of reducing pressure ([0063] The valves can control the flow of air or fluid to form pressure or vibration points at particular positions in the haptic array) in the housing (the haptic array housing).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the handheld device of Kallman et al. to include “the air flowing through the dissipation opening has the effect of reducing pressure in the housing” as taught by Moskowitz et al. for the purpose of providing an improved haptic array able to present a tactile pattern that depicts the position and movements of an object in the environment.
Regarding claim 8, Kallman et al. does not explicitly disclose the reducing pressure in the housing has the effect of increasing the amplitude of the haptic vibration.
However, Moskowitz et al. (e.g. see FIG. 12, FIG. 13, [0062], [0063]) teaches the reducing pressure in the housing has the effect of increasing the amplitude of the haptic vibration ([0063] The valves can control the flow of air or fluid to form pressure or vibration points at particular positions in the haptic array).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the handheld device of Kallman et al. to include “the reducing pressure in the housing has the effect of increasing the amplitude of the haptic vibration” as taught by Moskowitz et al. for the purpose of providing an improved haptic array able to present a tactile pattern that depicts the position and movements of an object in the environment.
Regarding claim 14, Kallman et al. does not explicitly disclose the increasing air flow has the effect of increasing the amplitude of a vibration from the piezoelectric actuator.
However, Moskowitz et al. (e.g. see FIG. 12, FIG. 13, [0062], [0063]) teaches the increasing air flow has the effect of increasing the amplitude of a vibration from the piezoelectric actuator ([0063] The valves can control the flow of air or fluid to form pressure or vibration points at particular positions in the haptic array).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the handheld device of Kallman et al. to include “the increasing air flow has the effect of increasing the amplitude of a vibration from the piezoelectric actuator” as taught by Moskowitz et al. for the purpose of providing an improved haptic array able to present a tactile pattern that depicts the position and movements of an object in the environment.
Since Kallman et al. and Moskowitz et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (piezoelectric haptic array housing), the purpose disclosed by Moskowitz et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Kallman et al.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mou et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210144884) discloses a heat-dissipating component for a mobile device includes a case body, a micro pump, and a heat dissipation tube plate.
Baker et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210168231) discloses a portable electronic device includes a housing member to allow air to pass into and out of the device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
27 January 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837