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
Applicant's election with traverse of Embodiment 5, Claims 1-5 and 7-20 in the reply filed on 08/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the features are not mutually exclusive and that there is no serious burden to examine all embodiments. This is not found persuasive because the argued features are mutually exclusive, a particular shape or number of half shear features are mutually exclusive, for 2 features are not the same as 3 features requiring addition search and consideration. Along the same lines, examination of all the disclosed features requires additional search. Additionally, Applicant is reminded that any claimed which includes allowable subject matter will be rejoined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Embodiment 5, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/20/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/13/2023, 08/20/2025 and 12/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikezoe [US 2023/0275498].
Claim 1, Ikezoe discloses a haptic actuator [figure 2], comprising: a housing [1/2] having a ferromagnetic wall [1D], the ferromagnetic wall having a set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [1DPL/1DPC/1DPR; figures 2 and 8B] protruding from the ferromagnetic wall into the housing; a movable magnet [5] positioned within the housing [figure 2]; a pair of springs [7L and 7R; figures 2, 3A and 3B], respectively attached to opposite sides of the housing and opposite ends of the movable magnet and biasing the movable magnet toward a position of rest between the pair of springs [figure 4B]; and an electric coil [4D] attached to the set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [figure 8B] and positioned between the movable magnet and the set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [figure 9A]. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “half shear ferromagnetic features” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Claim 2, Ikezoe discloses the haptic actuator of claim 1, wherein the pair of springs [7L and 7R] comprises a pair of flexure springs [figure 3A and 3B].
Claim 3, Ikezoe discloses the haptic actuator of claim 1, wherein the set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features comprises at least two ribs [1DPL/1DPC/1DPR].
Claim 7, Ikezoe discloses the haptic actuator of claim 1, wherein the set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [1DPL/1DPC/1DPR] comprises an array of same size features [figure 2].
Claim 8, Ikezoe discloses the haptic actuator of claim 1, wherein: the ferromagnetic wall [1D] is a first ferromagnetic wall [1D], the set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [1DPL/1DPC/1DPR] is a first set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [1DPL/1DPC/1DPR], and the electric coil [4D] is a first electric coil [4D]; the housing has a second ferromagnetic wall [1U; paragraph 0071 1U is the same as 1D] opposite the first ferromagnetic wall [1D]; the second ferromagnetic wall has a second set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [not labeled; paragraph 0071 1U is the same as 1D]; and the haptic actuator comprises a second electric coil [4U] attached to the second set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [paragraph 0071 1U is the same as 1D] and positioned between the movable magnet and the second set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [figure 2].
Claim 9, Ikezoe discloses the haptic actuator of claim 8, wherein the first set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features and the second set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features include respective equal numbers of half shear ferromagnetic features [paragraph 0071 1U is the same as 1D].
Claim 11, Ikezoe discloses an electromagnetic actuator [figure 2], comprising: a housing [1/2] having a ferromagnetic wall [1D], the ferromagnetic wall having a set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features [1DPL/1DPC/1DPR; figures 2 and 8B] protruding from the ferromagnetic wall into the housing; and an electromagnetic assembly 4/5] housed within the housing and including, a stationary component [4]; and a movable component [5]. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “half shear ferromagnetic features” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
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.
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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikezoe [US 2023/0275498].
Claim 5, Ikezoe discloses the haptic actuator of claim 1, with the exception of the set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features comprises at least four ribs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to at least four ribs instead of the three ribs as taught by Ikezoe, since applicant has not disclosed that using at least four ribs solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with three ribs.
Claim 10, Ikezoe discloses the haptic actuator of claim 8, with the exception of the first set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features and the second set of one or more half shear ferromagnetic features include respective different numbers of half shear ferromagnetic features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the number of shear ferromagnetic features on each wall, since applicant has not disclosed that using different number of ferromagnetic features solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the same number of ferromagnetic features as taught by Ikezoe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12-16 are 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 12/10/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ikezoe [US 2023/0275498] as applied above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837