DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 (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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 29 June 2026, 20 January 2026 and 7 September 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8-9, 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230089456).
Regarding independent claim 1, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1) discloses a vibration device (1) comprising: a plurality of vibration elements (4, 10) formed in a shape of a thin film ([0039] The piezoelectric element 10 has a piezoelectric element body 11 … The piezoelectric element. body 11 is configured by stacking a plurality of piezoelectric body layers (not illustrated). Each piezoelectric body layer is made of a piezoelectric material. For example, each piezoelectric body layer is made of a piezoelectric ceramic material. Used as the piezoelectric ceramic material is, for example, PZT), wherein the plurality of vibration elements (4, 10) are arranged side by side in a plane direction of the thin film ([0039] PZT), and the plurality of vibration elements (4, 10) are capable of being controlled (Fig. 4, Fig. 9) in different vibrations respectively (e. g. see [0033], [0034], [0036], control unit 5).
Regarding claim 2, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, Abstract: first frequency, second frequency) discloses vibrations of a first vibration element and a second vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements (4) have different frequencies (first frequency, second frequency).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0038], [0045]) discloses [0045] The first frequency is, for example, 50 Hz to 200 Hz. For example, the first frequency is 160 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 3,000 Hz to 10,000 Hz and varies depending on the pitch of the sound emitted by the piezoelectric element 10.
Saito et al. does not explicitly disclose a frequency of vibration of the plurality of vibration elements is 50 to 500 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the frequencies of Saito et al. to obtain “a frequency of vibration of the plurality of vibration elements is 50 to 500 Hz” for the purpose of engineering a highly controlled "beat frequency" (or envelope frequency) to support the usage of the vibration elements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13 and claim 14, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses a vibration unit (2) comprising: the vibration device (4) and a control part (5) that controls vibration of the vibration elements (10) included in the vibration device (4).
Regarding claim 18 and claim 19, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses every aspect of the invention except for “a vibration part that is arranged on an outer surface of the housing and generates vibration caused by the vibration elements included in the vibration device.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the housing of the vibration device of Saito et al. to include “a vibration part that is arranged on an outer surface of the housing and generates vibration caused by the vibration elements included in the vibration device” for the purpose of reducing the wiring cost and allowing the vibration device to emit relatively low level of sound and/or noise. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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.
Claims 3, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230089456).
Regarding claim 3, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0038], [0045]) discloses [0045] The first frequency is, for example, 50 Hz to 200 Hz. For example, the first frequency is 160 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 3,000 Hz to 10,000 Hz and varies depending on the pitch of the sound emitted by the piezoelectric element 10.
Saito et al. does not explicitly disclose a difference in frequency between vibrations of a first vibration element and a second vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements is 1 to 50 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the frequencies of Saito et al. to obtain “a difference in frequency between vibrations of a first vibration element and a second vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements is 1 to 50 Hz” for the purpose of engineering a highly controlled "beat frequency" (or envelope frequency) to support the usage of the vibration elements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0038], [0045]) discloses [0045] The first frequency is, for example, 50 Hz to 200 Hz. For example, the first frequency is 160 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 3,000 Hz to 10,000 Hz and varies depending on the pitch of the sound emitted by the piezoelectric element 10.
Saito et al. does not explicitly disclose a frequency of vibration of the plurality of vibration elements is 50 to 500 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the frequencies of Saito et al. to obtain “a frequency of vibration of the plurality of vibration elements is 50 to 500 Hz” for the purpose of engineering a highly controlled "beat frequency" (or envelope frequency) to support the usage of the vibration elements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses a vibration unit (2) comprising: the vibration device (4); and a control part (5) that controls vibration of the vibration elements (10) included in the vibration device (4).
Regarding claim 20, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses every aspect of the invention except for “a vibration part that is arranged on an outer surface of the housing and generates vibration caused by the vibration elements included in the vibration device.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the housing of the vibration device of Saito et al. to include “a vibration part that is arranged on an outer surface of the housing and generates vibration caused by the vibration elements included in the vibration device” for the purpose of reducing the wiring cost and allowing the vibration device to emit relatively low level of sound and/or noise. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 4-7, 11-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230089456) in view of Lee (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20120162113).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 5, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses every aspect of the invention except for “a vibration of a third vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements has a same frequency as that of the first vibration element and has a phase different from that of the first vibration element.”
However, Lee (e. g. see [0120]) teaches a vibration of a third vibration element (21) among the plurality of vibration elements (multiple vibrations may be performed by the plurality of vibrators) has a same frequency as that of the first vibration element and has a phase different from that of the first vibration element ([0120] By exciting vibrators other than the first vibrator 21, the vibration can be removed. In this case, the frequency of the remaining vibrators may be equal in magnitude to and be opposite in phase to that of the first vibrator 21.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the vibration device of Saito et al. to include “a vibration of a third vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements has a same frequency as that of the first vibration element and has a phase different from that of the first vibration element” as taught by Lee for the purpose of precisely controlling the vibrating position of the panel by adjusting the frequency of the vibrator disposed on the edge of the haptic panel (Abstract of Lee).
Since Saito et al. and Lee are both from the same field of endeavor (vibrating haptic apparatus having multiple vibrators), the purpose disclosed by Lee would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Saito et al.
Regarding claim 6, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses every aspect of the invention except for “vibrations of a first vibration element and a second vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements have a same frequency and have different phases.”
However, Lee (e. g. see [0120]) teaches vibrations of a first vibration element (21) and a second vibration element (the remaining vibrators) among the plurality of vibration elements (multiple vibrations may be performed by the plurality of vibrators) have a same frequency and have different phases ([0120] By exciting vibrators other than the first vibrator 21, the vibration can be removed. In this case, the frequency of the remaining vibrators may be equal in magnitude to and be opposite in phase to that of the first vibrator 21.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the vibration device of Saito et al. to include “vibrations of a first vibration element and a second vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements have a same frequency and have different phases” as taught by Lee for the purpose of precisely controlling the vibrating position of the panel by adjusting the frequency of the vibrator disposed on the edge of the haptic panel (Abstract of Lee).
Regarding claim 7, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses every aspect of the invention except for “vibrations of a first vibration element and a second vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements have a same frequency and are in opposite phases.”
However, Lee (e. g. see [0120]) teaches vibrations of a first vibration element (21) and a second vibration element (vibrators other than the first vibrator 21) among the plurality of vibration elements (multiple vibrations may be performed by the plurality of vibrators) have a same frequency and are in opposite phases ([0120] By exciting vibrators other than the first vibrator 21, the vibration can be removed. In this case, the frequency of the remaining vibrators may be equal in magnitude to and be opposite in phase to that of the first vibrator 21.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the vibration device of Saito et al. to include “vibrations of a first vibration element and a second vibration element among the plurality of vibration elements have a same frequency and are in opposite phases” as taught by Lee for the purpose of precisely controlling the vibrating position of the panel by adjusting the frequency of the vibrator disposed on the edge of the haptic panel (Abstract of Lee).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 12, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0038], [0045]) discloses [0045] The first frequency is, for example, 50 Hz to 200 Hz. For example, the first frequency is 160 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The second frequency is, for example, 3,000 Hz to 10,000 Hz and varies depending on the pitch of the sound emitted by the piezoelectric element 10.
Saito et al. does not explicitly disclose a frequency of vibration of the plurality of vibration elements is 50 to 500 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the frequencies of Saito et al. to obtain “a frequency of vibration of the plurality of vibration elements is 50 to 500 Hz” for the purpose of engineering a highly controlled "beat frequency" (or envelope frequency) to support the usage of the vibration elements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16 and claim 17, Saito et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1, [0041], [0042]) discloses a vibration unit (2) comprising: the vibration device (4); and a control part (5) that controls vibration of the vibration elements (10) included in the vibration device (4).
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ha et al. (U. S. 20240196135) discloses a vibration device including a plurality of vibration portions. Each vibration portion can have a single thin film shape by disposing (or connecting) the plurality of first portions and second portions on the same plane to provide the size flexibility.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
23 June 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights