DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
● Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 7 recites, “the pin comprising . . . an actuator mechanism selectively driving the tactile pin as needed to form the individual Braille character, the actuator mechanism positioned within a base” (emphasis added).
Given the context of the limitation above: (i) the pin is considered to comprise an actuator mechanism as part of the pin, and also (ii) the actuator mechanism is positioned within—i.e., inside—a base.
However, the original disclosure does have written description regarding any implementation that involves (i) an actuator mechanism as part of the pin, and/or (ii) an actuator mechanism positioned within a base.
Instead, the original specification is merely providing a generic remark, which denotes the implementation of an actuator mechanism that is well-known in the art (e.g., see [0023]); and furthermore, per the original figures, the alleged actuator mechanism (e.g., see the items labeled “26”) does not appear to be within any component that is designated as a base (e.g., see label “18a” per FIG 2A/2B; label “28” per FIG 3A/3B, FIG 4A/4B and FIG 5A/5B).
Thus, for examination purpose, when interpreting the claim in light of the specification, the “actuator mechanism” is considered to be associated with the base.
Note that, when an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or first paragraph (pre-AIA ), a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP 2163.06).
4. 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 2-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Regarding claims 2-6, claim 2 recites, “A Braille display with overload protection features, the Braille display comprising: an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user . . . the tactile pin including an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the phrase, “an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user”, as currently recited per line 3 of claim 2, is referring to the same feature—or a different feature—when compared to the phrase, “an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user”, as recited per line 7 of claim 2. Accordingly, claims 2-6 are ambiguous at least for the reason discussed above.
Note that for examination purpose, the phrase, “an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user”, as recited per line 3 of claim 2, is considered to be referring to the same feature that line 7 of claim 2 is reciting (i.e., the upper extent of the tactile pin).
(b) Regarding claims 7-11, claim 7 recites, “A pin for use in a refreshable Braille display, the pin comprising . . . an actuator mechanism selectively driving the tactile pin as needed . . .” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the term “the tactile pin” is referring to the term “the pin” since there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the tactile pin” in the claim.
Nevertheless, for examination purpose, the term “the tactile pin” is considered to be referring to the term “the pin” since the specification does not make any distinction between the term “pin” and the term “tactile pin”.
Similarly, it is unclear whether the “actuator mechanism” above is assumed to be part of the pin itself or part of the Braille display.
Nevertheless, given the interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, the “actuator mechanism” is considered to be part of the Braille display.
5. Claim 7 further invokes 35 U.S.C.112(f) given its means-plus-function limitation; namely the limitation, “overload protection means . . . preventing the pin from damaging the actuator mechanism upon the application of excessive forces to the Braille display” (emphasis added).
However, per the original disclosure, such “overload protection means” is described as a beam (per [0023]), a coil spring (per [0026), a buckle-spring (per [0028]), a plastic spring (per [0029]), or a compressible elastomer (per [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaw 2009/0023116.
Regarding claim 1, Shaw teaches the following claimed limitations: a tactile pin with overload protection features for use in a refreshable Braille display, the refreshable Braille display including an upper surface with a series of openings, the tactile pin being received within one of the series of openings ([0007]; FIG 1, label “14”: e.g., a refreshable tactile display device for Braille text and graphics; the device incorporates an upper surface with plurality of holes, so that each hole allows a respective tactile pin of the device to be projected; and wherein the device implements an arrangement for absorbing strong downward forces that one may apply on the pins of the display. Thus, the display device above already incorporates an overload protection features), the tactile pin (FIG 3, label “30”) comprising: an upper extent, a lower extent, and an intermediate extent therebetween, the upper extent being rounded and adapted to be perceived by the fingertips of a user (FIG 2 and FIG 3: e.g., label “33A”—per FIG 2—represents the upper extent; label “38”—per FIG 3—represents the lower extent; and label “40”—per FIG 2 or FIG 3—represents the intermediate extent. In this regard, the upper extent—label “33A” above—is already rounded; and thus, it is already adapted to be perceived by the fingertips of a user); a base for receiving the lower extent of the tactile pin, an actuator mechanism associated with the base, the actuator mechanism selectively driving the tactile pin upwardly with respect to the upper surface of the Braille display (FIG 2 and FIG 4: e.g., label “22”—per FIG 2—represents the base; and the base already receives the lower extent—label “38”—of the tactile pin; and furthermore, an actuating component [i.e., label “50” per FIG 2 or label “52” per FIG 4], which is part of the actuator mechanism of the refreshable display device, is already associated with the base; and the actuator mechanism selectively drives the tactile pin upwardly with respect to the upper surface—label “14” per FIG 1—of the refreshable tactile display) the actuator mechanism receiving instructions for driving a series of tactile pins to selectively generate refreshable Braille characters, the actuator mechanism including sensitive components ([0047]; [0049]: e.g., the actuator mechanism is already connected to a power supply and a processor/computer; and thereby, the processor/computer generates instructions, which drive the actuator mechanism to mechanically operate one or more of the tactile pins. Given the arrangement above, the actuator mechanism already includes sensitive components. Note that the claim does not positively specify the alleged “sensitive components”; and thus, the teaching above is consistent with the reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations); a coil spring positioned about the intermediate extent of the tactile pin, the coil spring having a length and a spring constant (see FIG 2; [0045]: e.g., a compressible coil spring—label “40”—forms the intermediate extent of the tactile pin; and the coil spring above already has a length and a spring constant. It is worth to note that a spring constant is an inherent part of such compressible coil spring even if the reference does not expressly indicates such spring constant), with the length and the spring constant being selected such that the upper extent of the tactile pin is positioned beneath the upper surface of the Braille display when the spring is compressed, the length and the spring constant further selected to prevent any damage to the sensitive components upon the application of excessive forces ([0045]; [0048]: e.g., during the operation of the refreshable tactile display, the coil spring of each tactile pin allows the pin to move downward when the pin encounters a considerable force, i.e., a force greater than a typical force applied during tactile reading; and furthermore, once the considerable force is removed, the coil spring returns the pin to its extended position. The above indicates that the length and the spring constant is selected such that (i) the upper extent of the tactile pin is positioned beneath the upper surface of the Braille display when the spring is compressed, and also (ii) prevents any damage to the sensitive components upon the application of excessive forces).
Regarding claim 7, Shaw teaches the following claimed limitations: a pin for use in a refreshable Braille display (FIG 3, label “30”), the pin comprising: an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user, with a series of pins being used to generate an individual Braille character ([0007]; FIG 2/FIG 3, label “33A”: e.g., a plurality of pins are utilized to form a refreshable tactile display for Braille text and graphics; and wherein, each of the pins comprises an upper extent—label “33A”—that a user perceives during reading); an actuator mechanism selectively driving the tactile pin as needed to form the individual Braille character, the actuator mechanism [associated with] a base (FIG 2 and FIG 4: e.g., an actuator, such as label “50” per FIG 2 or label “52” per FIG 4, which selectively drives the tactile pin, is positioned is positioned with a base—label “22” per FIG 2); overload protection means, the overload protection means preventing the pin from damaging the actuator mechanism upon the application of excessive forces to the Braille display (see FIG 2, label “40”; [0045]; [0048]: e.g., a compressible coil spring—label “40”— forms part of the tactile pin; and thus, during the operation of the refreshable tactile display, the coil spring of each tactile pin allows the pin to move downward when the pin encounters a considerable force, i.e., a force greater than a typical force that one applies during tactile reading. The arrangement above indicates that the display device already implements an overload protection means, the overload protection means preventing the pin from damaging the actuator mechanism upon the application of excessive forces to the Braille display).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shaw 2009/0023116.
Regarding claim 11, Shaw teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 7.
Although Shaw already teaches a conventional coil spring as the overload protection means (FIG 2, label “40”); and wherein the coil spring extends between the pin’s upper extent (FIG 2, label “31” or “33A”) and a lower extent (FIG 2, label “32” or FIG 3, label “38”), Shaw does not expressly describe the use of a compressible elastomer instead of the conventional coil spring above.
Nevertheless, Shaw already suggests at least one alternative structure; namely, “an elastomeric material with a form factor matching”, in order to achieve the same objective ([0045] lines 1-6).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Shaw; for example, by utilizing a structure made of an elastomeric material (e.g., a spring made of a plastic material, etc.) as part of the force absorbing component for each of the one or more pins of the refreshable tactile display; so that, a relatively light weight display device would be achieved (since each conventional coil spring of the plurality of coil springs is replaced with a corresponding elastomeric/plastic material, etc.).
● Claims 2-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shaw 2009/0023116 in view of Odell 2015/0277504.
Regarding claim 2, Shaw teaches the following claimed limitations: a Braille display with overload protection features ([0007] and FIG 1: e.g., a refreshable tactile display device for Braille text and graphics; the device implements an arrangement for absorbing strong downward forces that one may apply on the pins of the display. Thus, the display device above already incorporates an overload protection features), the Braille display comprising: an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user; a tactile pin positioned within the display and adapted to be driven upwardly and downwardly to generate refreshable Braille characters (see FIG 2 and FIG 3: e.g., label “33A” of FIG 2 represents the upper extent of the tactile pin, which the user perceives during reading; and each tactile pin—label “30” per FIG 3—is positioned within the display [see label “16” per FIG 2]; and furthermore, each tactile pin is driven up and down when generating textual and/or graphics to the user); an actuator mechanism for driving the tactile pin; the tactile pin including an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user and a lower extent operatively connected to the actuator mechanism (see FIG 2 to FIG 4: e.g., the display device implements an actuating component, label “50” of FIG 2 or label “52” of FIG 4, which is part of the actuator mechanism of the device; and thereby the device drives the tactile pin; and furthermore, besides the upper extent—label “33A”—discussed above, the tactile pin further includes a lower extent—label “38” of FIG 3; and this lower extent is already operatively connected to the actuator mechanism); a [structure] formed between the upper and lower extents of the tactile pin, the [structure] adapted to [compress] upon the application of excessive forces, the [structure] adapted to [uncompress] after the excessive forces are removed; the [structure] functioning to prevent damage to the tactile pin and the actuator mechanism (FIG 2, label “40”; [0045]; [0048] : e.g., the display device incorporates a structure, namely a spring, formed between the upper and lower extents of the tactile pin; and accordingly, during the operation of the refreshable tactile display, the spring is adapted to compress when the pin encounters a considerable force, i.e., a force greater than a typical force applied during tactile reading; and furthermore, once the considerable force is removed, the spring uncompresses in order to return pin to its extended position. The above indicates that the structure above is already functioning to prevent damage to the tactile pin and the actuator mechanism).
Although Shaw implements a spring as an exemplary structure that is positioned between the upper and lower extents of the tactile pin, Shaw already suggests alternative structures—such as “an elastomeric material”—can also be used to achieve the same objective ([0045] lines 1-6).
Moreover, Odell already demonstrates that it is an old and well-known practice in the art to use buckling elastomeric structures, including beams, when constructing pins/keys that are designed to be pressed by the fingertip of a user; and accordingly, the elastomeric structure or beam (i) buckles when a downward pressing force is applied to the pin/key, and (ii) unbuckles when the downward pressing force is removed from the pin/key ([0057] lines 9-13).
Although Odell’s exemplary teaching relates to a keyboard, it is an analogous art, see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I), since Odell is reasonably pertinent to the problem that the inventor is attempting to solve—i.e., the use of a beam when constructing a pin, which a user presses when operating a device; so that, the beam (i) buckles when a force (excessive force) is applied to the pin, and (ii) unbuckles when the force is removed.
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Shaw in view of Odell; for example, by utilizing an alternative structure—such as, an elastomeric/plastic buckling beam, wherein one or more of the physical features of the buckling beam are selected and/or configured in such a way that the buckling beam achieves the same objective that the conventional coil spring is achieving (i.e., the function of absorbing an excessive force that one may apply on the pins during reading); so that, a relatively light weight display device would be achieved (since the plurality of coil springs of the display are replaced with corresponding beams, etc.), besides the ease to construct and/or maintain the display device.
Regarding claim 3, Shaw in view of Odell teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
The limitation, “the length and the thickness of the beam are selected such that the tactile pin is positioned beneath a surface of the Braille display upon the application of excessive forces”, is already addressed per the modification discussed with respect to claim 2.
In particular, one or more of the physical features of the buckling beam (e.g., its strength, its flexibility, its thickness, its length, etc.) are already selected or configured in such a way that the beam achieves the same objective that the conventional coil spring is achieving (i.e., the function of absorbing an excessive force that one may apply on the pins during reading; wherein the beam allows the pin to move downward when it encounters excessive force). Note that except for the generic physical features above, the claim does not recite any limitation that defines a specific length or thickness regarding the beam. Accordingly, the modification discussed per claim 2 already addresses claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Shaw in view of Odell teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Although Shaw does not expressly describe that the tactile pin is integrally molded from a plastic, Shaw already teaches that (i) each pin is preferably a molded plastic ([0044] lines 1-3); and also, (ii) an elastomeric material can be used to connect the upper extent and the lower extent of the pin as an inseparable assembly ([0045]).
In addition, per the modification discussed per claim 2, a plastic buckling beam is utilized to link the upper extent ana the lower extent.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Shaw; for example, by utilizing a well-known arrangement—such as molding—that is typically used to form a unit with inseparable parts; so that, the pins of the display are easily and efficiently formed via a molding process (e.g., reducing the time that one may spent to make the pins, etc.).
Regarding each of claims 5 and 6, Shaw in view of Odell teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Each of the limitation, “the beam buckles towards a central axis upon the application of excessive forces” (per claim 5) and “the beam buckles away from a central axis upon the application of excessive forces” (per claim 6), is merely denoting the inherent characterizes of the beam.
In particular, depending on the magnitude and position/direction of the force being applied, a beam positioned between two parts may buckle towards a central axis—or away from the central axis—when the force is applied.
Accordingly, the modification discussed per claim 2, which already incorporates a beam as a force absorbing feature, already addresses each of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 10, Shaw teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 7.
Although Shaw already teaches a conventional coil spring as the overload protection means (FIG 2, label “40”); and wherein the coil spring extends between the pin’s upper extent (FIG 2, label “31” or “33A”) and a lower extent (FIG 2, label “32” or FIG 3, label “38”), Shaw does not expressly describe the use of a plastic beam instead of the conventional coil spring above.
Nevertheless, Shaw already suggests at least one alternative structure; namely, “an elastomeric material”, in order to achieve the same objective ([0045] lines 1-6).
Moreover, Odell already demonstrates that it is an old and well-known practice in the art to use buckling elastomeric structures, including beams, when constructing pins/keys that are designed to be pressed by the fingertip of a user; and accordingly, the elastomeric structure or beam (i) buckles when a downward pressing force is applied to the pin/key, and (ii) unbuckles when the downward pressing force is removed from the pin/key ([0057] lines 9-13).
Although Odell’s exemplary teaching relates to a keyboard, it is an analogous art, see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I), since Odell is reasonably pertinent to the problem that the inventor is attempting to solve—i.e., the use of a plastic beam when constructing a pin, which a user presses when operating a device; so that, the beam (i) buckles when a force (excessive force) is applied to the pin, and (ii) unbuckles when the force is removed.
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Shaw in view of Odell; for example, by utilizing an equivalent structure—such as a plastic buckling beam—as part of the force absorbing component for each of the one or more pins of the refreshable tactile display, wherein one or more of the physical features of the buckling beam are already selected/configured in such a way that the beam achieves the same objective that the conventional coil spring is achieving; so that, a relatively light weight display device would be achieved (since the plurality of coil springs of the display are replaced with corresponding plastic beams, etc.).
● Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Tretiakoff 4,664,632.
Regarding claim 8, Tretiakoff teaches the following claimed limitations: a pin for use in a refreshable Braille display, the pin comprising: an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user, with a series of pins being used to generate an individual Braille character (col.1, lines 4-15; col.2, lines 49-60: e.g., a tactile reading device that comprises a plurality of rods—i.e., tactile pins—utilized to generate Braille characters; and wherein each pin comprises an upper extent; see FIG 1, part of the rod/pin that protrudes from the flat upper surface—label “3”—of the display); an actuator mechanism selectively driving the tactile pin as needed to form the individual Braille character, the actuator mechanism [associated with] a base (see FIG 1: e.g., labels “9” corresponds to the actuator that selectively drives the pin; and wherein this actuator is associated with a rectangular opening labeled as “10”; and thus, this rectangular opening or its bottom part corresponds to the base); overload protection means, the overload protection means preventing the pin from damaging the actuator mechanism upon the application of excessive forces to the Braille display; wherein the overload protection means comprises an offset buckle spring interconnected between the pin and a [structure] (see FIG 1, labels “11” and “14”; also see col.3, lines 43-54: e.g., the lower extent—label “11”—of the pin is interconnected to a structure, such as the top part of the actuator—label “9”—via an S-shaped spring—label “14”, which is indeed an offset buckle spring given its S-shape configuration; thus, when one applies a pressure—such as an excessive force—downwardly on the pin/rod of the display device, the above S-shaped spring buckles due to the pressure; and thereby, it allows the pin/rod to move downward; and thereby, the arrangement prevents the pin and the actuator from damage, etc.).
Although Tretiakoff does not indicate that the lower end of the spring above is connected to the part designated as the base, the critical function of the claimed arrangement is to enable the spring to absorb an excessive force that may push the pin against the direction of the actuator.
In this regard, except for the rearrangement of the components above, and/or the part designated as the base, Tretiakoff does accomplish the critical function of the claimed arrangement above.
Thus, depending on the size of one or more available components (e.g., the length of available actuators and/or offset springs, etc.), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tretiakoff’s device by incorporating one or more common arrangements that are well-known in the art; such as, attaching a spacer plate—as a supplementary base—to the top of each actuator; and wherein, the spring is attached to the supplementary base above via its bearing, etc., so that, such arrangement provides additional flexibility to easily build such tactile display without being limited to some physical attributes of available components.
● Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Karasin 2013/0330692 in view of Shaw 2009/0023116.
Regarding claim 9, Karasin teaches the following claimed limitations: a pin for use in a refreshable Braille display (see FIG 3, label “201”), the pin comprising: an upper extent adapted to be perceived by a user, with a series of pins being used to generate an individual Braille character (FIG 3, label “200”; [0087]; [0088]: e.g., the pin already comprises an upper extent—label “200”—that a user perceives during tactile reading; and furthermore, the display implements a plurality of pins to form Braille characters); an actuator mechanism selectively driving the tactile pin as needed to form the individual Braille character, the actuator mechanism [associated with] a base ([0089] lines 10-17: e.g., the display has an actuator that moves the movable plate—FIG 3, label “207”—which is the lower extent of the pin; and therefore, actuator is associated with a base, which is labeled as “203” per FIG 3); overload protection means, the overload protection means preventing the pin from damaging the actuator mechanism upon the application of excessive forces to the Braille display (FIG 3, label “204”; [0090]: e.g., the display device already implements a spring; and accordingly, when the user applies excessive force on the pin, the spring allows the pin to retract freely without buckling or damaging any of the part. Thus, the spring above corresponds to the overload protections means).
Although Karasin teaches that the spring (FIG 3, label “204”) is interconnected between the pin (FIG 3, label “201”) and the base (FIG 3 label “203”), Karasin does not expressly describe the spring being a plastic spring.
However, Shaw teaches a spring as an overload protection for a tactile display; wherein Shaw further teaches the use of elastomeric material to form such spring ([0045] lines 1-4).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Karasin in view of Shaw; for example, by utilizing a spring made of an elastomeric material—such as, a plastic spring—as part of the force absorbing component for each of the one or more pins of the tactile display device; so that, a relatively light weight display device would be achieved due to the inherent light weight nature of elastomeric materials.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715