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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 April 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of group II, claims 9-16 in the reply filed on 9 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amendment moves group III, claims 17-20 past the restriction. This is found persuasive and therefore the restriction of group II, claims 9-16, and group III, claims 17-20, is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 9 April 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application but claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9, line 11 recites the limitation “a location associated with the proxy hand”. The limitation reads as though the location, spatially, of the proxy hand affects the operation of the first sensory actuators, wherein the specification and drawings are directed to a location on the proxy hand plate, not the proxy hand. This lack of clarity also reads into claims 10, 13 and 14, as both reference the location of the user’s hand and the proxy hand, but should be referencing locations on the real hand plate and the proxy hand plate.
Claims 10-16 inherit the same deficiency.
Claim 10, lines 3-4 recite “location of one of the first sensory actuators of the user's hand” but claim 9 recites the plurality of first sensory actuators as being part of the real hand plate.
Claims 11-14 inherit the same deficiency.
Claim 11, lines 1-3 recite “each of the first sensory actuators is at a different finger of the user's hand, and each of the second sensory actuators is at a different finger of the proxy hand”, which renders the claim indefinite because the actuators are not “at” the fingers as they are attached to the plates and are not directly associated with the fingers in the previous claims. Examiner suggests switching the limitations of lines 1-3 with the limitations of 4-7. For example:
--The system of claim 10, wherein the real hand plate and the proxy hand plate each comprise a plurality of finger clips attached to the plate, each of the plurality of finger clips housing a different one of the first and second sensory actuators and being configured to hold a finger of the user's hand or the proxy hand, and
wherein each of the first sensory actuators is located on the real hand plate at a different finger of the user's hand, and each of the second sensory actuators is located on the proxy hand plate at a different finger of the proxy hand.--
Claim 15 inherits the same deficiency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a processor" in line 1. It is unclear if the processor recited is intended to be the same processor in claim 9.
Claim 17, lines 5-7, recite “at a location of the extremity of the user” and “to an identified location of the proxy extremity” which reads as the location is spatial in comparison to a location on the extremity. It is unclear if the claim is directed to the spatial location of the extremity and the proxy extremity or if it is directed to a location located on the extremity and the proxy extremity.
Claim 17, line 11, recites “when operated”, but the claim does not clarify what is operated.
Claims 18-20 inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the wand or the proximity of the wand " in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the one of the first sensory actuators" in line 4. It is unclear which of the first sensory actuators “the one” is referencing.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara (“A novel rubber hand illusion paradigm allowing active self-touch with variable force feedback controlled by a haptic device.”, 2016).
Regarding claim 17, Hara discloses a system comprising: a touch feedback device comprising a plurality of first sensory actuators and configured to hold an extremity of a user (Figure 2(b), the platform would hold the extremity and the system comprises two actuators, one each for the X and Z direction movement); a proxy extremity (Figure 1); and a processor (Page 80, “multifunction data acquisition device (NI PCIe-6323, National Instruments) implemented in a desktop computer.”) configured to operate one of the first sensory actuators at a location of the extremity of the user corresponding to an identified location of the proxy extremity (Page 80, “Apparatus” section), wherein the extremity of the user and the proxy extremity are in a visually separated fields of view (Figure 5), and wherein the plurality of first sensory actuators are configured to induce a sensory response of the user when operated (Page 80, “Apparatus” section).
Regarding claim 18, Hara discloses a wand (Figure 3, a brush), wherein the processor is configured to determine the identified location of the proxy extremity based on a proximity or touch of the wand to the proxy extremity (Page 80, “Apparatus” section).
Regarding claim 19, Hara discloses the processor is further configured to predict the identified location of the proxy extremity based on a movement of the wand or the proximity of the wand to the proxy extremity (Page 80, “Apparatus” section, the actuators move in real time with the master device); and operate the one of the first sensory actuators prior to the wand touching the proxy extremity (Page 80, “Apparatus” section, the actuators move in real time with the master device).
Regarding claim 20, Hara discloses the proxy extremity is a digital representation of the extremity of the user (Page 83, digital representation does not require a display).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 recites a system comprising a lower and upper frame, wherein the lower and upper frame are rotatably attached, a real hand plate, which is attached to the lower frame, is configured to hold a user’s hand, the real hand plate comprising a plurality of first sensory actuators, a proxy hand plate attached to the upper frame and a processor that is configured to operate one of the first sensory actuators corresponding to a location on the proxy hand plate.
Burdea (US5143505A), teaches a master and slave device comprising a real hand plate and a proxy hand plate, wherein the real hand plate and proxy hand plate comprise a plurality of sensory actuators and a processor that is configured to operate one of the real hand plate sensory actuators corresponding to a location on the proxy hand plate. Burdea fails to discloses the upper and lower frame, wherein the upper and lower frames are rotatably attached and it would not have been obvious to attach the plates.
Hara (“A novel rubber hand illusion paradigm allowing active self-touch with variable force feedback controlled by a haptic device.”, 2016) fails to discloses the upper and lower frame, wherein the upper and lower frames are rotatably attached and it would not have been obvious to attach the plates of Hara.
The prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to teach the structure of the upper and lower frame, wherein the upper and lower are rotatably attached and it would not have been obvious to attach the plates, wherein a real hand plate, which is attached to the lower frame, is configured to hold a user’s hand, the real hand plate comprising a plurality of first sensory actuators, a proxy hand plate attached to the upper frame and a processor that is configured to operate one of the first sensory actuators corresponding to a location on the proxy hand plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights