The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 03/05/2024.
Claims 1-5 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Ng et al. (US Patent 11,093,035; Hereinafter Ng).
Re claims 1 and 4-5, Ng teaches a tactile sensation generation device (fig. 4, vibrotactile system) comprising:
a posture information generation unit configured to generate posture information representing a posture of a wearing part of a wearer of a vibration element (figs. 4-5, col. 8 and lines 35-40, a wearable glove (haptic device 410) and wristband (haptic device 420));
a fluid direction information acquisition unit configured to acquire fluid direction information representing a direction of a flow of a fluid in a virtual space and fluid speed information representing a speed of the flow of the fluid in the virtual space (fig. 5, col. 9-10, lines 60-65);
a comparison unit configured to compare the posture information of the wearing part with the fluid direction information (col. 16, lines 14-20, compared against a threshold to determine whether a touch occurred. Because, in this example, the TX and RX electrodes may each operate at a different frequency, when the user swipes their finger past their thumb (or other finger), the changes detected in the signals at each frequency may allow the controller to determine which direction the user is moving their fingers); and
a vibration control unit configured to control vibration of the vibration element based on a result of a comparison by the comparison unit, wherein after the vibration control unit calculates a time difference based on the fluid speed information and vibrates a first vibration element, the vibration control unit vibrates a second vibration element, which is spaced apart from the first vibration element, with the time difference (figs. 4-5, 7 and col. 13, lines 20-29, the electrodes 707 and 708 may be designed to vibrate upon receiving an initiation signal from the controller 710. The electrodes may also be designed to determine when the user's fingers are touching by measuring signal strength in electrical signals transferred between the electrodes (e.g., between electrodes 707 and 708)).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Connellan et al. (US 2019/0113966; hereinafter Connellan).
Re claim 2, Ng does not teach wherein the vibration control unit calculates the time difference based on a distance between the first vibration element and the second vibration element and the fluid speed information. However, it is taught by Connellan ([0130], three different properties of the received echo pulse that may be evaluated for different sensing purposes. They can include: (1) Time-of-flight (for sensing distance); (2) Doppler shift (for sensing velocity); (3) Amplitude attenuation (for sensing distance, directionality, or attenuation coefficient). For time-of-flight (TOF), an ultrasonic transmitter emits a short burst of sound in a particular direction. The pulse is detected by a receiver after a time interval t. The receiver records the length of this time interval, and calculates the distance travelled r based on the c, the speed of sound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Connellan’s content into Ng’s invention because it would provide different properties for different sensing purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims set forth in this action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178