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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13 and 33 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 1 recites the limitation "the housing cap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13 and 33 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 1-19, 23, 25, 27, 32 and 33 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-claim 1, Periquet et al. disclose in figures 1B and 4 a tactile feedback device, comprising:
a rotating shaft 102 that passes through a housing cap (see figure below), the shaft is supported by a first bearing 114.1 and a second bearing 114.2 and is provided with a rotation disk 12.2 (as best shown in figure 1B);
a drum rotor is connected to the rotation disk 12.2 (as best shown in figure 1B and noted in the annotated figure);
a core 122 with an integrated coil 120, a first gap is defined between the drum rotor inner surface and the core outer surface;
a pole ring 108.1 is positioned radially outward from the drum rotor, a second gap is defined between a pole ring inner surface and a drum rotor outer surface;
a flow hole (as shown below) passes through the rotation disk and provides communication between the first gap and the second gap;
an MR material is placed within the first and second gap;
the use of magnetic seals is further taught (see column 5 lines 10-19) adjacent each bearing (thus preventing the loss of MR material as well as any transmission of MR material to the bearing), as such an upper first magnetic seal (adjacent or associated with bearing 114.1) blocks MR material moving from the second gap into the first bearing 114.1;
a lower magnetic seal (adjacent or associated with bearing 114.2) would block MR material moving from the first gap;
the upper magnetic seal would be positioned above the rotation disk 12.2 and the lower magnetic seal would be positioned below the rotation disk, the upper magnet seal and the lower magnet seal are located below the first bearing supporting the shaft and above the second bearing supporting the shaft (the location of the magnetic seals would be such that each seal would prevent the loss of MR material to the bearing and to the exterior of the device, and as such would be located immediately adjacent each of the bearing structures, consistent with seal 16 in figure 1B);
a housing 108 encloses the shaft, the drum rotor, the core, and the upper and lower magnetic seals, Periquet et al. show various arrangements for the housing cap having a sensor housing (see figures 1A, 1B, 2 and 3), each of which is capable of being located on the top of the cap shown in figure 4 (as this would not affect the operation of the device, and is one of mere choice);
a sensor 128 detects rotation of the shaft (see column 8 lines 15-20).
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.
Re-claims 2, 3, 9, 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
589
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re-claims 5 and 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 7, the upper and lower magnetic seals include a permanent magnet (see column 5 line 20).
Re-claim 10, surfaces of the drum rotor, pole ring and core form shear surfaces that interact with the MR fluid, gaps are defined by the surfaces (as shown in figures 1A and 4).
Re-claims 11 and 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-claims 13 and 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 17, 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 12.1, and a second brake shear surface on a rotor outer surface (ROS) of the drum rotor;
a pole ring 108.1 (or 8.1) 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.);
a lower magnetic seal;
a magnetically responsive (MR) material is disposed within the first gap and the second gap;
a housing 8 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 at a housing top edge of the housing wall, and a sensor housing 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 (see annotated figure above) is formed in the rotation disk, 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.
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.
Re-claim 33, Periquet et al. teach a method of providing a tactile feedback using a tactile feedback device drum brake, the method comprising generating a torque (i.e. resistance) with the drum brake, including the configuration of the MR material, the first brake shear surface on the drum rotor, the second brake shear surface on the drum rotor, the pole ring shear surface and the core shear surface cooperate to create shearing of the MR material against first brake shear surface, second brake shear surface, pole ring shear surface, and the core shear surface when the MR material is exposed to magnetic flux, a flow hole passes through the rotation disk (see figure 1B), the magnetic seal arrangements, sensor and bearings as indicated in the above rejection of instant claims 1 and 17. The magnetic field varies the resistance of the MR material, as well as the shear of the material relative to the recited surfaces, as is common in the art.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 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-claims 4 and 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks regarding the dry MR material are addressed in the above rejection. It is the position of the Office that a dry MR material is interchangeable with a fluid suspended material, as evidenced in Carlson.
Regarding the flow hole, as is shown in figure 1B, a flow path of hole is present in the rotation disk. This passage would meet the claim limitations and would allow for the passage of any MR material between the first and second gaps as required. .
With regards to the magnetic seal and their arrangement relative to the bearings. The seal arrangement mentioned by the applicant (figure 1B) is merely illustrative to that specific embodiment. It is understood or expected that when having relied upon the tactile device set forth in figure 4, one would have positioned a seal adjacent each bearing, as this would have prevented the loss of MR material and would have prevented damage to the bearing. It is the position of the Office that Periquet et al. teaches all the features recited in the instant claims, with the exception of the dry MR material. It is further believed that one of ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the full disclosure of Periquet et al. would have recognized the various alterations available to them, including the use of magnetic seals adjacent each bearing, and the placement of the sensor device. As such the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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
June 2, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights