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 applicant’s amended claim(s) which refer to “ultrasonic acoustic field and focusing sound to define control points proximate the ultrasonic transducer array and changing the acoustic field such that the control point moves in series of increments” has been further analyzed and rejected over new ground of rejections.
According, to examiner’s analysis, the overall claims are merely generic concept of “air haptic feedback to transmit ultrasonic acoustic sound using ultrasonic transducer array and wherein the focusing as control point are being moved to direct sound to desired/targeted users” . See Baym et al. (US 10,575,093 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim (s) 26 recites the limitation "each transducer has a phase and amplitude that approximate a curve having a constant phase offset and linear phase ramp" associated therewith. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baym et al. (US 10,575,093 B2).
Claim 23 , the prior art herein as Baym et al. disclose of a method comprising: i) producing an ultrasonic acoustic field from an ultrasonic transducer array, the ultrasonic transducer array comprising a first ultrasonic transducer[[s]] and a second ultrasonic transducer having known relative positions and orientations, wherein the ultrasonic acoustic field is produced by a mid-air haptic feedback system; (fig.2-18 (20); col.7 line 10-55; col.15 line 15-22; col.54 line 5-1-/the acoustic field is produce through mid-air feedback based the various ultrasonic transducers); ii) focusing sound at an ultrasonic carrier frequency to define at least one control point proximate to the ultrasonic transducer array, wherein each of the at least one control point has a known spatial relationship relative to the ultrasonic transducer array (col.30 line 15-35; col.44 line 30-67; col.52 line 1-25/the steer beam at particular location has a certain known relation to the transducers); iii) modulating the at least one control point by a low frequency wave; and div[[iii]]) changing the acoustic field such that the least one control point moves (col.57 line 20-67 & col.88 line 30-45/modulating of the signal and steering the acoustic field to control the movement).
Nonetheless, the prior art never limit the control point as being moved in a series of increments.
However, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have adjusted the acoustic filed and associated control point as mentioned according to various parameters, by specifying if desired the control point as being moved in a series of increments for achieving same expected result so as to steer the acoustic field toward a targeted listener.
25 (Currently Amended). The method as in claim 23, wherein the at least one control point is moved spatially (fig.19-22; col.57 line 50-67).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baym et al. (US 10,575,093 B2) and Kappus et al. (US 9,596,529 B2).
24 (Currently Amended). The method as in claim 23, wherein the at least one control point is amplitude modulated with a signal.
However, Kappus et al. disclose of similar aspect wherein implementing a certain control point being amplitude modulated with a signal (col.3 line 35-50). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted control point being amplitude modulated with a signal so as to create the ultrasonic wave toward a designated target in the air.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baym et al. (US 10,575,093 B2) and Hoelwarth (US 10,289,199 B2).
27 (Previously Presented). The method as in claim 23, but the art never mentioned as wherein the at least one control point is moved by half a wavelength.
But Hoellwarth disclose of the similar aspect related to one control point is moved by half a wavelength (col.16 line 60-67). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect concerning control point is moved by half a wavelength for ensuring the signals for the haptic have compatible frequencies at the input.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baym et al. (US 10,575,093 B2) and Lin (US 9,576,084 B2).
28 (Previously Presented). The method as in claim 23, but the art never specify as wherein changing the acoustic field uses a Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy stability condition as an error bound condition based on the spatial distance traveled by the at least one control point.
However, Lin disclose of the similar aspect related to implementing spacing wherein the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy stability condition as an error bound condition based on the spatial distance traveled by the system (col.11 line 40-50). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted spacing wherein the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy stability condition as an error bound condition based on the spatial distance traveled by the system so as to ensure stability condition in using such algorithm approach.
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 DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571)272-7848. 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695