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 § 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.
Claim(s) 17-19, 23, 25, 27 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,878,657 to Periquet et al. in view of WO 98/00649 A1 to Carlson.
Re-claims 17 and 23, Periquet et al. disclose a tactile feedback device, comprising:
a drum rotor having a first brake shear surface on a rotor inner surface (RIS) of the drum rotor, and a second brake shear surface on a rotor outer surface (ROS) of the drum rotor;
a pole ring 108.1 (or 8.1 or 118 in figure 8, the housing is indicated as capable of conducting a magnetic field, see column 8 lines 55-56) has a pole ring shear surface on a pole ring inner surface (PRIS) fixedly and oppositely positioned from the ROS, a second gap is positioned between the PRIS and the ROS;
a core 22/122 has an integrated coil 20/120, the core has a core shear surface on a core outer surface (COS) oppositely positioned from the RIS, a first gap is positioned between the COS and the RIS;
a rotation disk 12.2 has an end, the drum rotor 12.1 is connected to the end and the rotation disk and is rotatably connected to a shaft 2/102;
an upper magnetic seal (as suggested by Periquet et al., see column 5 lines 17-20);
a lower magnetic seal (see column 5 lines 17-20);
a magnetically responsive (MR) material is disposed within the first gap and the second gap;
a housing encloses the shaft, the drum rotor, the pole ring, the core, the rotation disk, the upper magnetic seal, and the lower magnetic seal, the housing includes a housing cap secured to a housing wall 108.1 at a housing top edge of the housing wall, and a sensor housing (see at least figures 4 and 8) is secured to the housing wall at a housing bottom edge of the housing wall;
the upper magnetic seal is positioned to block movement of the MR material from one of the first or second gap past an upper void (as part of the bearing) between the upper magnetic seal and the housing cap, and the lower magnetic seal is positioned to block movement of the MR material from one of the other first or second gap past a lower void between lower magnetic seal and the core (Periquet et al. teach the use of magnetic seals adjacent and associated with each bearing, so as to form a leak tight condition, see column 5 lines 17-20);
a flow hole (as shown in figure 1B) is formed in the rotation disk 12.2/112, the flow hole provides communication between the first and second gap;
a sensor detects rotation of the shaft. It is noted that the directions upper and lower can be applied to an inverted condition of the embodiment shown in figure 4.
However, Periquet et al. fail to teach the MR material as a dry MR material that does not include a liquid or oil carrier. It is noted that Periquet et al. states that the MR material may be for example an MR fluid (see column 4 lines 41-44), this allows for variations as seen fit by the artisan.
Carlson teaches a tactile feedback device using various MR materials, including a dry MR material. Carlson further teaches the dry MR material providing a high resistance force (see page 3 lines 25-27). This is viewed as an improvement over MR materials suspended in a liquid or oil. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the MR fluid of Periquet et al. with a dry MR material as taught by Carlson, thus providing a high resistance force and thereby improving the operation and responsiveness of the tactile device.
PNG
media_image1.png
589
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re-claims 18 and 19, a controller (column 6 lines 39-45) communicates with the sensor and coil, the controller with an external power source controls a current to the coil, thus varying the magnetic flux generated by the coil, this saturates the drum rotor with magnetic flux thereby varying the resistance of the MR material (specifically the dry as suggested by Carlson) within the first and second gap (as known in the art).
Re-claim 21, the controller includes a current amplifier to increase or decrease the current communicated to the coil (see column 6 lines 41-45).
Re-claim 25, Periquet et al. fail to teach the thickness of the drum rotor as being between about 0.5 mm and 5 mm. No particular reason is provided for this range, such as solving a problem in the art, or one that provides a specific purpose. The thickness of the drum rotor is easily altered by the artisan to suit a specific purpose or need. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of design choice to have selected a thickness range for the drum rotor as between about 0.5 mm and 5 mm as this range would have allowed the drum rotor to perform as needed when having varied the viscosity of the MR fluid.
Re-claim 27, Periquet et al. fail to teach the width of the first and second gap as being between about 0.5 mm and 2 mm. No particular reason is provided for this range, such as one solving a problem in the art, or one that provides a specific purpose. The width of the first and second gap is easily altered by the artisan to suit a specific purpose or need. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of design choice to have utilized as width range of 0.5 mm and 2 mm for the first and second gap, as this range would have provided the expected damping or feedback response of the MR fluid.
Re-claim 32, each of the recited elements of claim 32 can be found in the rejection of the claims as set forth above, and as such will not be repeated here. The method of carrying out a tactile feedback feel is disclosed by Periquet et al., see column 6 lines 48-67 to column 7 lines 1-25). The resistive torque is generated by the variable shearing of the MR material, which is a function of the magnetic field.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periquet et al. in view of Carlson as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in view of US 2003/0079948 A1 to Jolly et al.
Re-claim 20, Periquet et al. teach the controller and sensor housing. However, Periquet et al. fail to suggest the controller is positioned within the sensor housing.
Jolly et al. teach an MR fluid device having a sensor housing 13 that contains the sensor and a controller (or electronics 115/119, see figure 3). This provides a unitary section for all the sensor and controller, thus minimizing distances between the controller and the sensors, and provides a compact design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the controller of Periquet et al. within the sensor housing as suggested by Jolly et al., thus providing a compact design and efficient use of space.
Re-claim 21, the controller includes a current amplifier to increase or decrease the current communicated to the coil (see column 6 lines 41-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13 and 33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the rotation disk providing a magnetic flux path for the upper magnetic seal and the lower magnetic seal, with a polarity of the lower magnetic seal opposite a polarity of the pole ring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the substitution of a dry MR material, as taught in Carlson, for the MR fluid material presently utilized in Periquet. It is the position of the Office that Carlson teaches this possible substitution, and that the dry MR material reacts in a similar manner as an MR fluid. The remarks regarding this substitution rendering Periquet unsatisfactory appear conclusionary, as it not certain why one of ordinary skill could not simply select the type of MR material used in the device. By forgoing a liquid material, one would prevent a fluid from leaking out and polluting the environment. If a dry MR material is found to work to a sufficient degree, then it stands to reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it’s use if the need was required. It is not believed that utilizing a dry MR fluid would have prevented the operation of the device, as remarked by the applicant. As for the use of magnetic seals in conjunction with the dry MR material, the magnetic seal would appear to prevent the loss of magnetic material, either fluid or dry, as each would have been attracted to the permanent magnet of the magnetic seal and prevented from passing outwardly. This would appear to be similar to the instant invention, and as such it is unclear why a magnetic type seal, when having been used in Periquet, would have been insufficient as remarked by the applicant. This type of seal is known and is thus not new.
With regards to the flow hole. Periquet clearly shows a hole, or passage formed in the rotation disk 12.2 (see figure 1B). It is the position of the Office that this passage can be carried over to any of the embodiments of Periquet as desired. As for the remarks regarding a lack of text disclosure of the flow passage in Periquet. These remarks are considered argumentative without supporting facts. It is unclear why a hole or passage formed in a disk that connects the two regions holding the MR material would not function as a flow hole for the MR material.
With regards to claims 25 and 27, as stated in the Office action, these limitations are merely dimensions. It is unclear why a person skilled in the art would not have selected the dimensions best suited for the device operation, including a drum rotor thickness and a first and second gap thickness. It is noted that none of the recited dimension are based upon any stated need, or address any particular problem in the art, and as such appear to be just random recitations. As for the viscosity remarks and dry MR material, the exposure of a magnetic field to the dry MR material is expected to vary how easily the rotor would move through the MR material. The MR material will create a drag on the rotor that varies with the magnetic field, which is in effect a change in viscosity, or resistance to flow or movement.
With regards to the magnetic saturation. It is noted that Carlson is relied upon for teaching the use of a dry MR material in lieu of an MR fluid. The recited magnetic saturation function is believed to occur in the device of Periquet, as the drum rotor is relatively thin (as seen in the figures with regards to the rotor and relative to the housing wall) and is expected to perform in the same manner as the instant invention.
With regards to instant claim 32. The structural features recited in claim 32 are found in the rejection of claim 17. The claim merely adds in a controller, power source and a circuit for applying a magnetic field, all of which shown in Periquet and is commonly known in the art. The circuit includes portions of the electromagnetic coil which is connected to a power source controlled by a controller in accordance with changing conditions. It is the position of the Office that controlling an MR material is known in the art, and as such is not new or non-obvious. As such the rejections of claims 17-21, 23, 25, 27 and 32 are maintained.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
September 29, 2026
