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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 28 November 2025 has been entered. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending in the application.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2001/0043847 A1 to Kramer (Kramer).
In reference to claim 1, Kramer discloses a haptics device comprising: a set of haptic arms (see Figs. 4A, B; 535, 536; Fig. 5L), each haptic arm including a proximal linkage (535; Fig. 5L), a distal linkage (536) and an actuating mechanism (538, 540); a set of shape memory alloy (SMA) components (par. 0114), each of the set of SMA components connected to one of the set of haptic arms to drive the actuating mechanism; and a processor (see Figs. 10, 19) for communicating with each of the actuating mechanisms to actuate the set of haptic arms.
In reference to claim 2, Kramer discloses the haptics device of Claim 1wherein the set of SMA components comprise a SMA wire (par. 0114), a SMA bundle, a SMA spring or a thin SMA sheet.
In reference to claim 5, Kramer discloses the haptics device of Claim 1 further comprising a set of positioning sensors for sensing a position of the set of haptic arms (par. 0139).
In reference to claim 6, Kramer discloses the haptics device of Claim 2 wherein the SMA components are a SMA wire (par. 0114) or SMA bundle (par. 0041).
In reference to claim 7, Kramer discloses the haptics device of Claim 6 wherein the SMA wire bundle comprises crimps or swages at least one end of the SMA wire bundle (the “bundle” is an optional limitation in claim 6 and thus the limitations of claim 7 are also considered optional).
In reference to claim 8, Kramer discloses the haptics device of Claim 6 wherein the SMA wire bundle comprises a first portion and a second portion (any two different sections of the bundle can be interpreted as a “portion”; also, the “bundle” is an optional limitation in claim 6 and thus the limitations of claim 7 are also considered optional).
In reference to claim 9, Kramer discloses the haptics device of Claim 8 further comprising an electrical isolating component (537, 539) to isolate the first portion of the SMA wire bundle from the second portion of the SMA wire or SMA bundle (the “bundle” is an optional limitation in claim 6 and thus the limitations of claim 7 are also considered optional).
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) 3 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0264664 A1 to Zamani et al. (Zamani).
In reference to claims 3 and 13-15, Kramer discloses the haptics device of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose an SMA component with plural portions with different characteristics. However, Zamani discloses an SMA component wherein when a current is passed through a SMA component, at least one portion of the SMA component experiences a microstructural transformation and at least one other portion of the SMA component remains unchanged (pars. 0046-0050) and wherein one portion of a SMA component actuates upon heating and another portion of the SMA component provides sensing (pars. 0035-0040). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an SMA component with multiple section characteristics disclosed by Zamani into the device of Kramer. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Zamani teaches the arrangement advantageously provides for reduced complexity and cost (par. 0035).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0196555 A1 to Kyung et al. (Kyung).
In reference to claim 4, Kramer discloses 4 the haptics device of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose cooling housings. However, Kyung discloses a similar device utilizing SMAs (par. 0060) further comprising: a set of cooling housings for cooling the set of SMA components (par. 0061). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cooling housings disclosed by Kyung into the device of Kramer. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the arrangement would advantageously provide for faster restoration of the SMA components.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0092267 A1 to Najdovski et al. (Najdovski) in view of Kramer.
In reference to claim 1, Najdovski discloses a haptics device comprising: a set of haptic arms (12, 13; Figs. 1-8), each haptic arm including a proximal linkage (12 or one of the segments of 12), a distal linkage (one of the other segments of 12 or 13) and an actuating mechanism (pars. 0139-0140); a set of components, each of the set of SMA components connected to one of the set of haptic arms to drive the actuating mechanism (pars. 0139-0140); and a processor (Fig. 13) for communicating with each of the actuating mechanisms to actuate the set of haptic arms, but fails to explicitly disclose a set of shape memory alloy (SMA) components. However, Kramer discloses a similar device that utilizes SMAs for actuation (par. 0114). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the SMAs disclosed by Kramer motors of Najdovski. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kramer teaches the two types of actuators are useable for the same purpose (par. 0114).
In reference to claim 10, the modified Najdovski teaches the haptics device of Claim 1 further comprising an end effector, the end effector connected to at least one of the set of haptic arms (Najdovski, par. 0157).
In reference to claim 11, the modified Najdovski teaches the haptics device of Claim 10 further comprising a stylus component connected to the end effector (Najdovski, “probe”, pars. 0182, 0186, 0206
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: JP 2004-029999 A (in particular, Fig. 7) still also appears to anticipate at least claim 1 and may be relied upon in a subsequent Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pp. 4-5 of the reply that neither Kramer nor Najdovski disclose “a set of haptic arms, each haptic arm including a proximal linkage [and] a distal linkage”. Applicant is correct that Fig. 5L of Kramer (as referred to in the rejection) only depicts a single haptic arm. However, in light of the disclosure as a whole, it is clear that the figure is meant to show the details of a single joint in a glove comprising numerous joints and therefore multiple arms that would form a “set of haptic arms”. For example, a glove with multiple joints for multiple fingers is depicted in Figs. 4A, 4B and described in at least pars. 0006, 0013, 0025-0031. Kramer meets all of the limitations of the claims and the rejections are proper and remain.
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 JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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, Mark Laurenzi III can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
10 December 2025