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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/10/2026. Claims 21-40 are pending and have been considered below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 4/10/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent issued on co-pending application 19021653 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s amendment to claim(s) filed 4/10/2026, the 35 USC 112 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 4/10/2026 have been considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment as set forth below in this office action.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2017/0131772).
Regarding claim 21:
Choi discloses an electronic device (figures; abstract) comprising:
a housing (figure 2a [housing or cover for electronic devices as shown]; fig 7);
an input device positioned at least partially within the housing and configured to receive a first input and a second input (fig 2a; fig 12 [1250]), the input device comprising:
a first input sensor configured to produce a first signal in response to the first input (para 40 [first input]; para 70; figure 12 [sensor module 1240]); and
a second input sensor configured to produce a second signal in response to the second input (para 163 [second input]; fig 12); and
a processing device operably connected to the first input sensor and the second input sensor (figure 12 [processor 1210]), the processing device configured to:
detect the first and second signals (figure 3a [steps 303,305 and 307,309]; figs 3b, 3c);
cause the electronic device to perform a first function in response to detecting the first signal (fig 3a [step 306]); and
cause the electronic device to perform a second function in response to detecting the second signal (fig 3a [step 311]; para 208; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 36:
Choi discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 21 and further discloses a wearable electronic device comprising, a display at least partially enclosed by the housing; a haptic engine configured to produce a haptic output at the housing (140 in fig 1; para 59), thus claim 36 is rejected with similar rationale under teachings of prior art as in claim 21 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 22,37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2017/0131772) in view of Jung (US 2015/0123500).
Regarding claims 22, 37:
Choi discloses all of the subject matter as described above and a haptic actuator operably connected to the processing device, positioned within the housing, configured to produce a haptic output (140 in figure 1; figure 12; and throughout), except for specifically teaching that the haptic actuator comprising a magnet and a coil.
However, Jung in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for a haptic actuator where haptic actuator comprising a magnet and a coil (abstract [haptic actuator with coil and magnet]; figure 1; para 1, 14,21; para 28,35-38 [coil 20, magnet 61 in fig 1]; and throughout disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Jung in Choi to provide haptic actuator to generate haptic output throughout mutual operation of coil and magnet [para 1,13] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-35 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 23-26, 38-40 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights