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 .
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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 8/7/2025, where claims 1, 10, and 18 are amended; and claims 1-25 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed on 8/7/2025, with respect to previous double patenting rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-18 over corresponding claims of the US Patent No. 12,164,689, and claims 1-25 over corresponding claims of the US Patent No. 12,216,827, have been fully considered. However, the amendment does not overcome the obvious type double patenting rejections; therefore, the rejections are maintained for reason of record.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-12, with respect to previous rejections of independent claims 1, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered. Applicant argued that Vanhemert does not teach the newly amended limitation of “monitoring a location of a first touch input of a first user on the tactile portion of the first user interface and a location on the first user interface corresponding to a location of a second touch input of a second user on a tactile portion of a second user interface of a second client device; determining a distance between the location of the first touch input on the tactile portion of the first user interface and the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input; and causing the first user interface to generate a haptic feedback response that varies based on the distance to guide the first user to the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input”. Specifically because Vanhemert only teaches vibrating the phones when two fingers overlap; therefore, it does not teach monitoring the location of the first touch input of the first user on the tactile portion of the first interface and location on the first user interface corresponding to location of second touch input of the second user on a tactile portion of a second user interface of a second client device; determine distance between the locations of the touch inputs; and generate haptic feedback response that varies based on the distance to guide the first user to the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input. Examiner respectfully disagreed. The crux of the teaching of Vanhemert is to allow one user, e.g., first user, to provide touch input, e.g., first touch input, on a tactile portion of a user interface, e.g., first user interface, of a device, e.g., first client device, while another user, e.g., second user, provides a touch input, e.g., second touch input, on another user device, e.g., second client device. Where the locations of both touch points are monitored in order to determined that the touch input locations of the first user and the second user overlapped, e.g., distance is zero. Once it is determined that the first touch input location overlaps with the second touch input location, both user’s devices vibrate, e.g., haptic feedback. As presented in the rejection below and also in the previous Office action, Vanhemert does not explicitly teach the haptic feedback varies based on the determined distance. Wang was relied on for the teaching of varying haptic feedback based on distance. Therefore, Vanhemert teaches at least the limitations of “monitoring a location of a first touch input of a first user on the tactile portion of the first user interface and a location on the first user interface corresponding to a location of a second touch input of a second user on a tactile portion of a second user interface of a second client device; determining a distance between the location of the first touch input on the tactile portion of the first user interface and the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input; and causing the first user interface to generate a haptic feedback response”. With regards to the newly added recitation of “to guide the first user to the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input”, it has not been treated as a limitation with patentable weight. Examiner interprets it as merely stating a desired outcome and/or intended use of providing varying haptic feedback based on the determined distance, because it does not recite any additional structure and/or method step to further limit the subject matter of the instant claims.
Applicant further argued that Kim does not remedy the deficiencies of Vanhemert. Examiner generally agreed that Kim does not explicitly teach the limitations as discussed above. Therefore, Kim was not cited to teach such limitations.
Applicant further argued that Wang does not teach the limitation above because the calculation is based on the distance between two game characters and not based on the touch inputs of different interfaces. Examiner respectfully disagreed. Although Wang does not explicitly teach the formula is calculated based on distance between two touch input locations; however, Vanhemert was relied upon for tracking and determining two touch input locations and providing haptic feedback based on the tracking and determining. Further, the touch locations of the first user and the second user are virtually represented as red dots on each respective devices, which is equivalent as game characters. Therefore, Vanhemert already provides the teachings for providing haptic feedback based on the two touch input locations, virtually represented by a red dot for each user. Wang is relied upon for the teachings of the haptic feedback being dependent on the distance between two virtual representations. Although Vanhemert does not explicitly disclose the application as being a game; however, it does provide virtual representations of two users, e.g., game characters. As such, it is reasonable to combine the teachings of Vanhemert and Wang. Based on the reason(s) above, Vanhemert in view of Wang teach the newly amended limitations above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12-13, with respect to previous rejections of claims 2, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered. Applicant argued that Vanhemert in view of Kim and Wang do not teach “the haptic feedback response increases in intensity or speed as the distance decreases and decreases in intensity or speed as the distance increases”. Applicant argued that claims 1, 10, and 18 expressly state the distance is between the first touch input location and the second touch input location. Examiner respectfully disagreed. As discussed above, the limitations regarding touch locations are taught by Vanhemert and the limitations regarding intensity of the haptic feedback based on distance is taught by Wang.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12-13, with respect to previous rejections of claims 3, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered. Applicant argued that Vanhemert in view of Kim and Wang do not teach “’determining that the distance is below a predetermined threshold’ to cause a specified output Vi that the Examiner is equating to be ‘a reward haptic feedback response’”. Examiner respectfully disagreed. The term “predetermined threshold” as currently presented, is a broad term. Therefore, under BRI, one of ordinary skill in the art can construe it as being distance of 1, e.g., overlap. Thus, Vanhemert teaches such, where when the distance between the two touch locations are below 1, or when they overlap, provide a haptic feedback. Further, the term “reward haptic feedback response” as currently presented, is also a broad term. Therefore, under BRI, one of ordinary skill in the art can construe it as being any haptic feedback response that is different from haptic feedback response, e.g., different level of intensities. Thus, Vanhemert teaches providing a reward, e.g., haptic feedback, to users for overlapping their touch inputs. While Wang teaches providing a haptic feedback response, e.g., varying intensity, when the distance is 0 that is different than any other haptic feedback. As such, the combination of Vanhemert and Wang teach the limitations above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 13-14, that all dependent claims are patentably distinguished over the cited prior art at least in view of the dependency from their respective independent claims, and requests that the rejections for all dependent claims be reconsidered and withdrew for the reasons argued above. However, the rejections of the dependent claims are maintained with the rationale set forth above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 21 respectively of the US Patent No. 12,164,689 (hereinafter ‘689 patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 1, 10, and 18 of the instant application and the corresponding claims of the ‘689 patent are directed to system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that display communication interface on two devices. In response to detecting a first user touch input in the first user interface and a second user touch input in the second user interface, determine the distance between the touch location of the first user in the first user interface and the touch location of the second user in the first user interface corresponding to the touch location on the second device, and provide haptic feedback based on the distance. Claims 1, 10, and 18 of the instant application are broader in scope; therefore, the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 2-8 and 11-18 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-18, and 21 respectively of the ‘689 patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘689 patent.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 18 respectively of the US Patent No. 12,216,827 (hereinafter ‘827 patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 1, 10, and 18 of the instant application and the corresponding claims of the ‘827 patent are directed to system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that display communication interface on two devices. In response to detecting a first user touch input in the first user interface and a second user touch input in the second user interface, determine the distance between the touch location of the first user in the first user interface and the touch location of the second user in the first user interface corresponding to the touch location on the second device, and provide haptic feedback based on the distance. Claims 1, 10, and 18 of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding claims of the ‘827 patent; therefore, the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 1, 3-10, 12-18, and 20-25 respectively of the ‘827 patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘827 patent.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Vanhemert, (“The Most Intimate Thing You Can Do With Your Smartphone”) (hereinafter Vanhemert) in view of Wang, (US 20200306627 A1) (hereinafter Wang).
Referring to claim 1, Vanhemert teaches a system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory having instructions thereon, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising (Pg. 2 lines 19-38, The disclosed app is intended to be executed on smartphones, e.g., iPhone, which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art inherently includes a processor and memory.):
causing a communication interface for a communication session to be displayed on a first user interface of a first client device, wherein the communication interface comprises a tactile portion (Pg. 2 lines 26-28, “[E]stablish a ‘touch room,’ and send a link to a friend.” The image on page 1 shows the interface comprises a tactile portion, e.g., area of the screens where the users provide touch inputs, on each of the devices.);
monitoring a location of a first touch input of a first user on the tactile portion of the first user interface and a location on the first user interface corresponding to a location of a second touch input of a second user on a tactile portion of a second user interface of a second client device (Pg. 2 lines 28-36, “[P]ut your finger on the screen--when you do, your fingertip shows up as a red dot. When your friend puts a finger on their screen, their fingertip shows up as a red dot too; as they move it, the virtual fingertip darts around your screen in real time. Then, when your two fingertips overlap, both phones vibrate.” Examiner notes, based on the disclosure of Vanhemert, where red dots are showing the locations of the first user’s fingertip and the second user’s fingertip, it is inherent that the touch locations of the first user and the second user are monitored, in order for the display to show the red dots corresponding to the locations of the first user’s fingertip and the second user’s fingertip);
determining a distance between the location of the first touch input on the tactile portion of the first user interface and the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input; and
causing the first user interface to generate a haptic feedback response…based on the distance to guide the first user to the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input (Pg. 2 lines 28-36, “[P]ut your finger on the screen--when you do, your fingertip shows up as a red dot. When your friend puts a finger on their screen, their fingertip shows up as a red dot too; as they move it, the virtual fingertip darts around your screen in real time. Then, when your two fingertips overlap, both phones vibrate.”)
Vanhemert teaches the limitations above. However, Vanhemert does not explicitly teach the communication interface includes generate a haptic feedback response that varies based on the distance.
Wang teaches generate a haptic feedback response that varies based on the distance (¶ [0010], “[T]he vibration controlling information is a vibration intensity, and the preset relationship satisfies
V
i
=
1
-
P
i
P
m
a
x
*
V
m
a
x
, wherein Pi is the distance between the first game character and the second game character, Pmax is a preset distance threshold, Vmax is a preset vibration frequency threshold, and Vi is the vibration intensity corresponding to that the distance between the first game character and the second game character is Pi.” Examiner notes, with distance between game characters (Pi) set to 5, preset distance threshold (Pmax) set to 5, vibration frequency threshold (Vmax) set to 5, the vibration intensity (Vi) is equal to 0. When Pi is set to 0 while keep all other values the same, Vi is equal to 5. Therefore, the vibration intensity increases as the distance between the game characters decreases.)
Vanhemert and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface with vibration feedback (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Vanhemert and Wang before them to modify the smartphone app of Vanhemert to incorporate the function of varying vibration intensity based on distance as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements using known methods as disclosed by Wang (¶ [0025]-[0078]), because the function of varying vibration intensity based on distance does not depend on the smartphone app. That is the function of varying vibration intensity based on distance perform the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to improve user experience as suggested by Wang (¶ [0067]).
Referring to claim 2, Vanhemert teaches the system of claim 1. However, Vanhemert does not explicitly teach the haptic feedback response increases in intensity or speed as the distance decreases and decreases in intensity or speed as the distance increases.
Wang further teaches the haptic feedback response increases in intensity or speed as the distance decreases and decreases in intensity or speed as the distance increases (¶ [0010], “[T]he vibration controlling information is a vibration intensity, and the preset relationship satisfies
V
i
=
1
-
P
i
P
m
a
x
*
V
m
a
x
, wherein Pi is the distance between the first game character and the second game character, Pmax is a preset distance threshold, Vmax is a preset vibration frequency threshold, and Vi is the vibration intensity corresponding to that the distance between the first game character and the second game character is Pi.” Examiner notes, based on the formula discussed above, the vibration intensity increases as the distance between the game characters decreases.)
Referring to claim 3, Vanhemert further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system to perform the operations further comprising:
in response to determining that the distance is below a predetermined threshold, causing the first user interface and the second user interface to generate a reward haptic feedback response (Pg. 2 lines 34-36, “[W]hen your two fingertips overlap, both phones vibrate.”)
Vanhemert teaches the limitations above. However, Vanhemert does not explicitly teach the reward haptic response is different from the haptic feedback response.
Wang further teaches the reward haptic response is different from the haptic feedback response (¶ [0010], “[T]he vibration controlling information is a vibration intensity, and the preset relationship satisfies
V
i
=
1
-
P
i
P
m
a
x
*
V
m
a
x
, wherein Pi is the distance between the first game character and the second game character, Pmax is a preset distance threshold, Vmax is a preset vibration frequency threshold, and Vi is the vibration intensity corresponding to that the distance between the first game character and the second game character is Pi.” Examiner notes, based on Wang’s disclosure, the vibration intensity is the highest when Pi is the shortest, e.g., 0, which is a different intensity than Pi is any other distance; therefore, they are different haptic feedback response, e.g., reward haptic.)
Referring to claim 4, Vanhemert teaches the limitations above. However, Vanhemert does not explicitly teach the haptic feedback response comprises a first vibration pattern and the reward haptic feedback response comprises a second vibration pattern that is different from the first vibration pattern.
Wang further teaches the haptic feedback response comprises a first vibration pattern and the reward haptic feedback response comprises a second vibration pattern that is different from the first vibration pattern (¶ [0068], “[W]herein Pi is a distance between the first game character and the second game character, Pmax is the preset distance threshold, Vmax is the preset vibration frequency threshold, and Vi is the vibration frequency corresponding to that the distance between the first game character and the second game character is Pi. The vibration amplitude of the first vibrating device and/or the second vibrating device is controlled by controlling the vibration frequency. The magnitude of the distance Pi between the first game character “a” and the second game character “b” is configured to control the corresponding vibration amplitude of the first vibration device and/or the second vibration device.”)
Referring to claim 5, Vanhemert further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the system to perform the operations further comprising:
in response to determining that the distance is below the predetermined threshold, causing the first user interface and the second user interface to generate an augmentation to the communication interface (Pg. 4 and 5, Overlapping red dots are generated when the users’ fingertips overlapped.)
Referring to claim 6, Vanhemert further teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the augmentation comprises an overlay, a visual effect, an animation, a sound effect, or any combination thereof (Pg. 4 and 5, Overlapping red dots are generated when the users’ fingertips overlapped.)
Referring to claim 7, Vanhemert further teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the augmentation is generated temporarily for a predetermined period of time (Pg. 4 and 5, The overlapping red dots are generated temporarily until the users’ fingertips are no longer overlapped.)
Referring to claim 8, Vanhemert further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system to perform the operations further comprising:
causing the first user interface to display a first indicator element at the location of the first touch input and a second indicator element at the location on the first user interface corresponding to the location of the second touch input on the second user interface; or
causing the second user interface to display the first indicator element at the location of the second touch input and the second indicator element at the location on the second user interface corresponding to the location of the first touch input on the first user interface (Image on pg. 1 and pg. 2 lines 30-35, “[Y]our fingertip shows up as a red dot. When your friend puts a finger on their screen, their fingertip shows up as a red dot too; as they move it, the virtual fingertip darts around your screen in real time.”)
Referring to claim 9, Vanhemert further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system to perform the operations further comprising:
receive content for an electronic message from the first client device or the second client device; and
causing the electronic message to be displayed in the communication interface displayed on the first client device and the second client device (Pg. 6 and 7, The user is sending an invite message that shows on both devices via iMessage.)
Regarding claims 10-17, these claims recite the method performed by the system of claims 1-8 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claims 18-25, these claims recite the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executed by the system of claims 1-8 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20150293592 (Cheong) – discloses device that output haptic feedback based on speed and distance.
US 20150253848 (Heubel) – discloses systems for providing tactile feedback according to a speed or distance of an action being performed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5817. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118