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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claim amendments filed 5/4/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The independent claims are amended to require the “attenuated audio information having a non-zero amplitude”.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the claim amendments, which are addressed and answered in the new grounds of rejection, below.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 & 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biggs (U.S. Pub. No.: 2017/0180863 A1) in view of Doucet et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2021/0275905 A1) and Bhatia et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2014/0152429 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, 16-20: Biggs discloses a process and device for providing haptic feedback to a user, (Abstract), the device comprising: a haptic controller; a linear haptic device, (Fig. 8, 808); a processor, (¶ 109); and a hardware storage device, the hardware storage device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, (e.g., ¶ 236), cause the device to: determine a provided haptic waveform from software audio information, (e.g., ¶¶ 5, 6, Figs. 18, 19), identify vibrational information of a provided haptic waveform in a crossover network, (e.g., ¶¶ 87-89).
Biggs discloses identifying audio information of the provided haptic waveform in the crossover network; attenuate at least a portion of the audio information to create attenuated audio information; remix the vibrational information and the attenuated audio information; and driving a linear haptic device at least partially according to the output haptic waveform, (e.g., ¶¶ 87-94).
Biggs discloses the invention substantially wherein the vibrational information and attenuated audio information is summed (e.g., ¶¶ 90, 91, 108, 109), but does not appear to make explicit, an output haptic waveform resulting from the remixing. Regarding the amendment: The present amendment recites the “attenuated audio information having a non-zero amplitude”. Briggs inherently discloses that audio information has non-zero amplitude because a signal with zero amplitude would not comprise attenuated audio information at all. Rather, in this scenario, the signal would simply be discarded.
However, Examiner is introducing a secondary reference to show the audio information “having a non-zero amplitude”. In a related invention, Bhatia in ¶ 39 makes explicit that a filtered audio frame has an amplitude defined by the variable “A” used in waveform generation. Amplitude “A” is non-zero. Also in a related invention, Doucet teaches remixing the vibrational information and the attenuated audio information in an output haptic waveform, (Doucet, ¶ 32.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have produced an output haptic waveform resulting from remixing Biggs’ vibrational and audio information, as suggested by Bhatia and Doucet, for the purpose of effectively outputting feedback to a user. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize performing a summation operation on Biggs’ waveforms produces an output waveform that is usable to generate a haptic effect with both tactile and sound effects. This yields the predictable results of delivering a haptic experience to a user.
Regarding Claim 2: Biggs discloses wherein an attenuation value is proportional to a frequency value of at least a portion of the audio information, (e.g., ¶¶ 87, 89, 91).
Regarding Claim 3: Biggs discloses, wherein the provided haptic waveform is received from an interactive software application and an attenuation value is received from the interactive software application, (e.g., ¶ 97).
Regarding Claims 6-10, 15: Biggs discloses setting a crossover value before identifying the vibrational information and the audio information, (e.g., Fig. 7, ¶¶ 87-89), and wherein setting the crossover value includes obtaining a resonant frequency, (e.g., ¶¶ 84, 85) of the linear haptic device.
While Briggs discloses applying high and low pass filters, (e.g., ¶¶ 88, 94, 98), Briggs does not make explicit, wherein a crossover value between the vibrational information and the audio information of the crossover network is 100 Hz and wherein the audio information is between the crossover value and 4000 Hz. Modifying the filtering shown by Briggs within the ranges claimed by Applicant would have been an obvious design consideration at the time of Applicant’s filing. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art could adjust Briggs’ frequency ranges within desired constraints while achieving predictable results. Moreover, Applicant has not described the claimed crossover values as being critical or achieving specific results. Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have modified Briggs’ filtering such that a crossover value between the vibrational information and the audio information of the crossover network is 100 Hz, and the audio information is between the crossover value and 4000 Hz.
Regarding Claim 11, 13, 14: See Briggs, e.g., ¶¶ 120, 160, 165, 167.
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biggs in view of Doucet and Bhatia, as applied to Claim 1, in view of Helmer et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2020/0409460 A1)
Biggs and Doucet teach the invention substantially but do not make explicit, attenuating at least a portion of the audio information includes at least a portion of the audio information based at least partially on an equalizer setting, wherein an amplitude of the at least a portion of the audio information is set to zero.
However, in a related haptic feedback invention, Helmer shows an editing interface where audio and tactile information is attenuated and adjusted with an equalizer setting, (Helmer, e.g., ¶¶ 164, 258, 259.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided Helmer’s editing interfaces in the system of Biggs in view of Doucet and Bhatia for the purpose of allowing an operator to customize and adjust settings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that user preferences differ, allowing editing of audio and tactile feedback thus helps deliver a more customized experience.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892.
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 OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights