Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/478,366

DYNAMIC MODIFICATION OF DEVICE VIBRATION HAPTICS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
WANG, JACK K
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Motorola Mobility LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
449 granted / 733 resolved
-0.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
753
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 733 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitlow et al. (Pub # US 2012/0075122 A1), and further in view of Levesque et al. (Pub # US 2015/0347075 A1). Consider claim 1, Whitlow et al. teaches an electronic device comprising: a memory having stored thereon a dynamic haptic alert (DHA) module for managing one or more of an intensity, a frequency, a duration, and pattern of haptic responses by the electronic device [0015 and 0036]; a haptic output device; a processor communicatively coupled to the haptic output device and the memory, and which executes program code of the DHA module, which enables the electronic device to: detect a haptic triggering event; and in response to detecting the haptic triggering event: generate a first haptic output [0041]; wait a predetermined duration for an acknowledgement of the first haptic output; and in response to the first haptic output not being acknowledged after the predetermined duration, change a haptic setting of the electronic device and generate-a second haptic output that has at least one parameter that differs from a corresponding parameter of the first haptic output [0054], determine a pattern of responses to multiple occurrences of the first haptic output over a period of time [0048 and 0053]. Whitlow et al. does not teach in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event. In the same field of endeavor, Levesque et al. teaches in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event [0044] for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event as shown in Lecveaque et al., in Whitlow et al. device for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness. Consider claim 3, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein to change the haptic setting and generate the second haptic output, the processor increases an amplitude parameter [0036 and 0049]. Consider claim 4, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein to change the haptic setting and generate the second haptic output, the processor increases a frequency parameter [0049]. Consider claim 5, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein the first haptic output has a first duration of vibration, and wherein to change the haptic setting and generate a second haptic output, the processor provides a second duration of vibration, wherein the second duration of vibration is different from the first duration of vibration [0049]. Consider claim 6, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the electronic device, wherein the first haptic output has a first pattern of vibration, and wherein to change the haptic setting and generate a second haptic output, the processor generates a second pattern of vibration that is different from the first pattern of vibration [0054]. Consider claim 8, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 as set forth above. Consider claim 10, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 3 as set forth above. Consider claim 11, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 4 as set forth above. Consider claim 12, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 5 as set forth above. Consider claim 13, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 6 as set forth above. Consider claim 15, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium have program instructions that when executed by a processor of an electronic device that comprises a display, the program instructions configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: detecting a haptic triggering event; in response to detecting the haptic triggering event: generate a first haptic output [0041]; wait a predetermined duration for an acknowledgement of the first haptic output; and in response to the first haptic output not being acknowledged after the predetermined duration, change a haptic setting of the electronic device and generate-a second haptic output that has at least one parameter that differs from a corresponding parameter of the first haptic output [0054], determine a pattern of responses to multiple occurrences of the first haptic output over a period of time [0048 and 0053]. Whitlow et al. does not teach in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event. In the same field of endeavor, Levesque et al. teaches in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event [0044] for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to the pattern of responses indicating a reduced efficacy in the response time to presentation of the first haptic output, trigger a change in the haptic setting to automatically generate the second haptic output for a next haptic triggering event as shown in Lecveaque et al., in Whitlow et al. device for the benefit of improving user awareness and notification effectiveness. Consider claim 17, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the computer program product, wherein the computer program product further comprises program instruction for the haptic setting by increasing at least one of an amplitude parameter and a frequency parameter [0036 and 0049]. Consider claim 19, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the computer program product, wherein the first haptic output has a first duration of vibration, and wherein the computer program product further comprises program instructions for providing a second duration of vibration, wherein the second duration of vibration is different from the first duration of vibration [0049]. Consider claim 20, Whitlow et al. clearly shows and disclose the computer program product, wherein the first haptic output has a first pattern of vibration, and wherein the computer program product further comprises program instructions for providing a second pattern of vibration, wherein the second pattern of vibration is different from the first pattern of vibration [0054]. Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitlow (Pub # US 2012/0075122 A1) in view of Levesque et al. (Pub # US 2015/0347075 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Sutherland (Pub # US 2021/0084436 A1). Consider claim 7, Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference teaches the similar invention. Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference does not teach the electronic device, further comprising a body proximity sensor coupled to the processor, and wherein the processor: determines whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generates the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device. In the same field of endeavor, Sutherland teaches the electronic device, further comprising a body proximity sensor coupled to the processor, and wherein the processor: determines whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generates the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device [0083] for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a body proximity sensor coupled to the processor, and wherein the processor: determines whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generates the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device as shown in Sutherland, in Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined rdevice for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user. Consider claim 14, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 7 as set forth above. Consider claim 21, Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference teaches similar invention. Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined reference does not teach wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions that configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: determining whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generating the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device. In the same field of endeavor, Sutherland teaches wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions that configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: determining whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generating the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device [0083] for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions that configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising: determining whether the electronic device is in an on-body state; and generating the second haptic output in response to detecting an on-body state of the electronic device as shown in Sutherland, in Whitlow et al. and Levesque et al. combined device for the benefit of generate the proper alert to the user. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17, and 19-21 have been considered but are moot because the newly amended limitations have been analyzed and rejected as set forth in rejection above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM. 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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. /JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 08, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12548418
SENSOR POWERED BY ITEM OF MERCHANDISE FOR RETAIL SECURITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12518125
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A RFID ENABLED METAL LICENSE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12515679
Apparatuses, Systems and Methods for Determining Distracted Drivers Associated With Vehicle Driving Routes
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12508187
HAPTIC GUIDING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12499768
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO VALIDATE DATA COMMUNICATED BY A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+12.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 733 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month