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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 July 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-18, 20-22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 (and dependent claims 22 and 24) recite “A method for identifying user interactions with an apparatus comprising a sensor and an actuator coupled to the sensor, the method comprising: identifying an expected presence of cross-talk caused by actuation of the actuator in a signal originating from the sensor; in response to the identifying, removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk from the signal; and when at least some of the cross-talk has been removed or ignored, identifying a user interaction from the signal.”
Claims 21, 22 and 24, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “identifying an expected presence of cross-talk caused by actuation of the actuator in a signal originating from the sensor; in response to the identifying, removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk from the signal; and when at least some of the cross-talk has been removed or ignored, identifying a user interaction from the signal.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “identifying an expected presence of cross-talk caused by actuation of the actuator in a signal originating from the sensor; in response to the identifying, removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk from the signal; and when at least some of the cross-talk has been removed or ignored, identifying a user interaction from the signal.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 1 and 25, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-18 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0062] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-18, 20, 22 and 24 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-18, 20-22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-18, 20-22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Das et al (US 10,976,825).
Das et al disclose the following claimed features:
Regarding claim 1, an apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) comprising: a sensor (105) for sensing user interaction with a surface of the apparatus; an actuator (107) coupled to the sensor (105) and arranged to actuate in response to a feedback trigger; and at least one processor (202) coupled to the actuator and sensor (Figure 2) and arranged to: identify an expected presence of cross-talk caused by actuation of the actuator in a signal originating from the sensor (column 2, lines 7-55); in response to the identifying, remove or ignore at least some of the cross-talk from the signal (column 2, lines 7-55; column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 3); and when at least some of the cross-talk has been removed or ignored, identify a user interaction from the signal (column 2, lines 7-55; column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 2, wherein identifying the expected presence of the cross-talk comprises receiving a signal indicative of an actuation of the actuator (column 2, lines 7-55).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the feedback trigger is: a user interaction with the surface of the apparatus, sensed by the sensor; or a software trigger initiated by a software application running in the apparatus (column 6, lines 4-38).
Regarding claim 5, wherein removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk comprises determining an expected cross-talk signal (column 2, lines 7-55).
Regarding claim 6, wherein determining the expected cross-talk signal comprises using a function to model the cross-talk (column 7, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the function takes as an input any one or more of: actuation pulse length, actuation pulse duration, internal temperature, external temperature, force, and force applied to the surface of the apparatus (column 7, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 9, wherein determining the expected cross-talk signal comprises: obtaining at least one input for the function from a drive signal used to actuate the actuator; and/or obtaining at least one input for the function from the sensor (column 7, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 10, wherein: determining the expected cross-talk signal comprises retrieving, from storage, a pre-determined cross-talk signal; and the pre-determined cross-talk signal is determined during calibration of the sensor and actuator (column 7, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 11, further comprising: a user interface for receiving a user input for re-calibration of the sensor and actuator; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to store the pre-determined cross-talk signal determined during the re-calibration (column 7, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 12, wherein removing at least some of the cross-talk comprises subtracting the expected cross-talk signal from the signal originating from the sensor (column 7, line 60 to column 8, line 3; column 20, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 13, wherein removing at least some of the cross-talk further comprises adding a baseline signal to the signal originating from the sensor (column 7, line 60 to column 8, line 3; column 20, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 15, wherein: the removal of at least some of the cross-talk is performed in real-time to enable further user interactions to be sensed; and/or the removal of at least some of the cross-talk is performed during a pre-defined period after the actuator is actuated (column 7, line 60 to column 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 16, wherein removing at least some of the cross-talk comprises blocking or ignoring the signal during a pre-defined period after the actuator is actuated (column 7, line 60 to column 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 17, wherein: the processor is configured to process the signal before removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk; and processing the signal comprises performing at least one of: convolution, integration, differentiation, and filtering (column 2, line 56 to column 3, line 3).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the sensor is any one of: a force sensor (105), a pressure sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an optical sensor, a fingerprint sensor, an inductive sensor, a piezoelectric sensor, and a contact sensor (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the actuator is a haptics actuator that is any one of: a shape memory alloy actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a linear resonant actuator, and an electroactive polymer actuator (column 4, lines 7-20).
Regarding claim 21, a method for identifying user interactions with an apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) comprising a sensor (105) and an actuator (107) coupled to the sensor, the method comprising: identifying an expected presence of cross-talk caused by actuation of the actuator in a signal originating from the sensor (column 2, lines 7-55); in response to the identifying, removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk from the signal (column 2, lines 7-55; column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 3); and when at least some of the cross-talk has been removed or ignored, identifying a user interaction from the signal (column 2, lines 7-55; column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 22, wherein identifying the expected presence of the cross-talk comprises receiving a signal indicative of an actuation of the actuator (column 2, lines 7-55).
Regarding claim 24, wherein removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk comprises: determining an expected cross-talk signal; and subtracting the expected cross-talk signal from the signal originating from the sensor (column 7, line 60 to column 8, line 3; column 20, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 25, a non-transitory data carrier carrying processor control code (column 20, line 61 to column 21, line 16) to implement a method for identifying user interactions with an apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) comprising a sensor (105) and an actuator (107) coupled to the sensor, the method comprising: identifying an expected presence of cross-talk caused by actuation of the actuator in a signal originating from the sensor (column 2, lines 7-55); in response to the identifying, removing or ignoring at least some of the cross-talk from the signal (column 2, lines 7-55; column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 3); and when at least some of the cross-talk has been removed or ignored, identifying a user interaction from the signal (column 2, lines 7-55; column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 3).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:5:30pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853