DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuki et al. [US 9437357] in view of Blaesing et al. [US 20160176292].
As to claim 1. Furuki discloses A passive haptic device comprising
a first mechanical member, [fig. 3, 16; col. 5, lines 42-47, col. 10, lines 49-53] first magnetic body 13, moving with respect to a second mechanical member, [fig. 3, 15, col. 6, lines 4-12, col. 10, lines 43-48] second magnetic body 63 attached to the outside concentric member 20b, the first mechanical member having a first magnet, [fig. 3, 16; col. 5, lines 42-47, col. 10, lines 49-53] magnet 12, comprising a first plurality of magnetized zones, at least two magnetized zones of the first plurality of magnetized zones spaced periodically according to a pitch P1, [fig. 3, 16; col. 5, lines 42-47, col. 10, lines 49-53] inward protrusions 13a arranged in a periodic circular arrangement on the first magnetic body 13 attached to the first magnet 12, [col. 7, lines 63-67] with a predetermined pitch; [col. 11, lines 20-23] magnetic body 13 and 63 magnetized with the respective magnets,
the second mechanical member having a second magnet, [fig. 3, 15; col. 6, lines 4-12, col. 10, lines 43-48] second magnet 62, comprising a second plurality of magnetized zones, at least two magnetized zones of the second plurality of magnetized zones spaced periodically according to a pitch P2, [fig. 3, 16; col. 5, lines 42-47, col. 10, lines 49-53] outward protrusions 63a arranged in a periodic circular arrangement on the second magnetic body 63 attached to the second magnet 62, [col. 7, lines 63-67] with a predetermined pitch; [col. 11, lines 20-23] magnetic body 13 and 63 magnetized with the respective magnets; wherein any two groups are periodic if all members are periodic,
a force that varies periodically as a function of the relative position of the mechanical members being created by the magnetic interaction between the mechanical members, [fig. 16, col. 11, lines 1-11], the magnetic interaction varying according to a period Pt, [col. 7, lines 63-67] the rotation determines the period for a predetermined pitch, [fig. 12, col. 11, lines 9-32] operating the rotary knob 20 creates a magnetic force between 13a and 63a that can be felt wherein the period of rotation defines the period Pt.
Furuki fails to disclose wherein, for at least one of the first magnet and the second magnet, every magnetized zone is magnetized in the same sense.
Blaesing teaches a system with a rotary ring 3 with a first part 3’ and a second part 3’’, [fig. 1, 0025]; wherein the first part comprises magnets arranged in a ring with evert magnetized zone arranged in the same sense, axially parallel to the axis of rotation, [figs. 3, 4, 0030].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Furuki with that of Blaesing so that the rotary ring can have a stable equilibrium state, as suggested in [0032].
As to claim 2. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 1, wherein the first and second plurality of magnetized zones are integral parts, respectively, of the first magnet and of the second magnet, [fig. 16, col. 10, lines 43-60].
As to claim 3. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of magnetized zones comprises a soft ferromagnetic material, [col. 5, lines 53-55] a steel material used, and is magnetized by the magnet integrated into its mechanical member, [fig. 16, col. 10, lines 43-60].
As to claim 4. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 1, the mechanical members are movable in relative translation, [col. 10, lines 63-67].
As to claim 5. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 1, the mechanical members have the shape of a ring, [fig. 3], and are movable in relative rotation, [col. 10, lines 63-67].
As to claim 6. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 3, the magnetized zones of the annular mechanical members are magnetized radially, [fig. 7, 16] the magnetization is radially in or out from the teeth 11a and 61a.
As to claim 8. Is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 5.
As to claim 10. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 1, wherein the pitch P1 is equal to the pitch P2, [fig. 6].
As to claim 11. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to, claim 1, wherein a mechanical air gap is located between the mechanical member and the mechanical member, the mechanical air gap being devoid of ferromagnetic materials, [fig. 15, 16] there is no insulator or other material used in the space between the materials 13 and 63 and the gap is left empty.
As to claim 12. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to, claim 1, wherein the moving mechanical member has a protuberance comprising a magnet, [fig. 16] protuberance 13a as a magnet, the field of which is intended to be measured by a magnetosensitive probe to provide information on the position of the moving member, [fig. 5, col. 6, lines 31-39; col. 12, lines 22-33] the rotation detection detects rotation based on the strength of the magnetic attraction.
As to claim 14. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 12, wherein the protuberance and the magnet are magnetized in the same sense as the magnetized zones of at least one of the mechanical members, [fig. 16].
As to claim 17. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 1, wherein the mechanical members have a relative displacement in at least two directions, [fig. 9, 10, col. 5, lines 25-27], the relative displacement with respect to a first direction giving rise to the periodically variable force, and the relative displacement with respect to a second direction resulting in a continuously variable force, [fig. 12].
As to claim 18. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 1, wherein the first mechanical member has two pluralities, [fig. 16] two poles N and S on each member 11 and 21, of periodically spaced magnetized zones according to the same pitch P1, [fig. 6, col. 7, lines 63-67] with a predetermined pitch, and wherein the two pluralities of magnetized zones are mechanically phase-shifted to modulate an amplitude of a periodically variable force as a function of a relative position of the mechanical members, [fig. 12, col. 8, lines 8-14] the magnetic attraction force generated when the knob is rotated, shifting the two magnets relative to each other.
As to claim 19. Furuki discloses The passive haptic device according to claim 12, wherein the protuberance and the magnet are magnetized in the same direction and the same sense, [fig. 16].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuki in view of Blaesing as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Olsson et al. [US 20100265176].
As to claim 9. the combination of Furuki and Blaesing fails to disclose The passive haptic device according to claim 1, the first movable mechanical member comprises a ball joint movable in rotation about three orthogonal axes.
Olsson teaches a system to provide tactile feedback, [0120] using a spherical magnet 112 arranged in a ball joint, [fig. 2A, 0118].
A ball joint is movable in three orthogonal axes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Furuki and Blaesing with that of Olsson so that the system can provide positional feedback in more dimensions.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuki.
As to claim 13. Furuki fails to explicitly disclose The passive haptic device according to, claim 12, wherein the protuberance is the magnet.
Furuki, in [col. 7, lines 50-62], indicates that forming the magnet 12 to have a complicated shape by having the teeth formed on the magnet itself might have increased complexity and higher cost.
It is clear that Furuki indicates that forming the magnet wherein the magnetic member 13 and the magnet can be made to have the teeth only has the effect of increasing the cost.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fufuri to implement the magnet 12 to have the teeth to reduce the number of materials needed and size of the system.
Claim(s) 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuki in view of Blaesing as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Delette et al. [US 20190348896].
As to claim 15. the combination of Furuki and Blaesing fails to disclose The passive haptic device according to, claim 1, wherein at least one of the magnets comprises magnetic particles in a plastic material.
Delette teaches a system wherein a magnet can be formed by plastic injecting a mixture of plastic and magnetic powder, [0143].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Furuki and Blaesing with that of Delette so that the magnet can be less sensitive to shocks and ageing problems.
As to claim 16. the combination of Furuki and Blaesing fails to disclose The passive haptic device according to, claim 1, wherein at least one of the magnets comprises a sintered magnet.
Delette teaches a system wherein a magnet can be sintered magnet, [0138].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Furuki and Blaesing with that of Delette so that the magnet can have strong attraction using smaller material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applying Blaesing’s discrete-magnet approach to Furuki to obtain the “same sense” feature would require reconfiguring Furuki’s magnet/yoke arrangement into a different arrangement, rather than a straightforward modification of the structure relied upon by the Office.
Response 1: In response to applicant's argument that “the modification would require reconfiguring Furuki’s magnet/yoke arrangement into a different arrangement, rather than a straightforward modification of the structure”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
There is no requirement or restriction on how complicated or straightforward the modification can be.
Furuki already anticipates the use of discrete-magnet approach, as illustrated in [fig. 25A, 25B]. Changing the arrangement of the discrete magnets in a way described in Blaesing would not be a significant modification for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Argument 2: If the proposed combination retains the magnet-and-yoke assemblies, the rejection does not explain how applying the common magnetization orientation of discrete magnets would produce the recited ''same sense" arrangement in the retained toothed yokes while preserving their complementary flux-carrying functions.
Response 2: The originally filed disclosure, in [0034] of the published application, states ““Same sense” means that for each point of the magnetized zone, the magnetization is carried by a vector m of coordinates (m1, m2, m3), these coordinates being identical in the local coordinate system associated with each point considered, the local coordinate system possibly being expressed in Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinates. In other words, the plurality of magnetized zones of at least one of the mechanical members does not have an alternation of North poles and South poles.”
The magnetized zone of the member 2” is all south “S” and the magnetized zone for the second member 3” is all north “N” at the same zone, giving the zone the same magnetization flowing from N to S at all of the zones at a given time. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily understand that this is a fundamental working principle of magnets.
There is no discussion of flux-carrying functions in the Office Action.
Argument 3: Furuki [figs. 24-25B] are identified as prior-art devices are criticized as complicated magnetization and associated cost of that prior-art arrangement. These teachings weigh against treating Figures 25A and 25B as an affirmative reason to abandon the Figure 16 magnetic circuit.
Response 3: Furuki’s identification of the drawbacks of the magnetic bodies to be implemented as discrete magnets is only of cost and complication. The functions of the improvements as described in Furuki still remains functional.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art identification of the above argued portion of Furuki, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Argument 4: The device resulting from the combination of Furuki and Blaesing would no longer include “a first magnet” or “a second magnet” per mechanical member as recited in claim 1.
Response 4: Blaesing’s discrete magnets 4 are arranged to create a magnetized ring 4 that reads on the claimed “first magnet”. The Office Action is not relying on the discrete magnets to read on the “first magnet” and the “second magnet”.
Argument 5: The reason for combination does not support the proposed modification because Furuki already describes the first and second magnetic bodies being “stable in the defined position.” The issue is why that objective would have prompted the particular restructuring needed to produce the claimed arrangement. Identifying stability as a desirable result does not explain how the proposed restructuring achieves the recited relationships or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have undertaken it in view of the magnetic circuit and manufacturing considerations discussed above.
Response 5: Blaesing details a plurality of factors on what makes the disclosed arrangement of the magnets to be in a stable equilibrium. There is no requirement that the motivation cannot come from both of the prior arts.
The motivation for combining prior arts does not need to answer all questions raised. It merely needs to provide a reason for “one of ordinary skill in the art” to have a motivation to combine prior arts. The motivation can come from an established knowledge of the person or from the prior arts used. For the above claim, the motivation comes from Blaesing et al. as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Argument 6: Furuki notes manufacturing advantages associated with using a simple magnet together with separately formed magnetic members (e.g., yokes), explaining that "compared to a structure in which a magnet having a complicated shape is integrally molded, the manufacturing is easier." (Furuki, col. 7, 11. 50-62). This teaching does not support a conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to restructure Furuki's magnet/yoke assembly into a different magnet arrangement as contemplated in Blaesing.
Response 6: There is no requirement for one of ordinary skill in the art to get an already manufactured product of the primary invention and modify the product with the teachings of a secondary invention. One of ordinary skill in the art is free to manufacture a product that is a result of the modification based on the teachings of the combined prior arts.
Argument 7: Dependent claim 2 is further not obvious considering Furuki in view of Blaesing because the cited references do not teach or suggest "wherein the first and second plurality of magnetized zones are integral parts, respectively, of the first magnet and of the second magnet," as recited in claim 2.
Response 7: The Office Action is relying only on Furuki to teach the limitations of claim 2.
Argument 8: As to claim 18, the Office identifies two poles in Figure 16 for the two pluralities, but then relies on rotation that shifts the two magnets relative to each other for the recited mechanical phase shift (Office Action, pp. 6-7). That reasoning conflates the relative position of the first and second mechanical members with the phase relationship between the two pluralities on the first mechanical member.
Response 8: The Examiner is unable to understand the identified error in the office action. Two magnets magnetically interacting based on the attraction/repulsion force created based on the polarity of the two magnets facing each other. Applying a force on one magnet creates a changing magnetic force. The changing force is dependent on the physical arrangement of the two magnets. The Examiner is unable to understand where the error is in the Office Action.
Argument 9: The cited discussion of Figure 12 compares torque characteristics obtained using different protrusion shapes; it does not teach mechanically phase-shifting two pluralities on the first mechanical member (Furuki, col. 8, 11. 4-14; Fig. 12). A periodically varying force produced by relative rotation does not itself establish the additional relationship recited in claim 18. The rejection identifies no teaching in Blaesing that supplies that relationship or reason for modifying the cited arrangement to provide it.
Response 9: The Examiner is unable to understand the identified error in the office action. Two magnets magnetically interacting based on the attraction/repulsion force created based on the polarity of the two magnets facing each other. Applying a force on one magnet creates a changing magnetic force. The changing force is dependent on the physical arrangement of the two magnets. The Examiner is unable to understand where the error is in the Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
