DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 19, 2025 (hereinafter "Remarks”) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
*Examiner notes the rejections below are organized by 1) number of references followed by 2) numerical order.
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) 5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquero et al. (USPN 2010/0328231) in view of Vengrin (USPN 2019/0011998) and further in view of Wong (USPN 12,039,542).
With respect to claim 5, Pasquero teaches a touch screen haptic system (Figs. 1-11) for a vehicle (Examiner notes this appears to be intended use and no patentable weight is being given to the language. The usage of the touch screen “for a vehicle” does not require any specific structure. See MPEP 2111.02(II) for further details), the system comprising:
a number of touch-activated actuators for providing input (Figs. 1-11)
an overlay material placed over a touch screen (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 2-8 and paragraphs [0022]-[0030] teach a touch overlay), wherein a number of open areas are defined within the overlay material to provide tactile access to the touch activated actuators (Figs. 1-11 and at least paragraphs [0022], [0023] and [0025] teaches the overlay is made of a thin sheet of material with cutouts/holes), wherein edges of the open areas are sized and/or shaped to provide tactile feedback to a user regarding the approximate locations of the touch activated actuators (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 2-8 and paragraph [0027] teach small ridges or grooves may used to distinguish different touch areas),
wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas trigger an action responsive to pressure exerted through overlay material (Figs. 3-5 and paragraphs [0026]-[0029] teach contact with the actuator causes a change in capacitance on the touch surface and registers an action. Examiner notes the capacitance of a touch increases with more pressure because it forces the button closer to the touch surface).
However, Pasquero fails to expressly teach wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through overlay material; and wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback, thereby allowing the user the option to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen (emphasis added).
Vengrin teaches a known technique providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay (Figs. 1-16 and paragraph [0029]).
Pasquero teaches a base process/product of a touch overlay responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through overlay material. Vengrin teaches a known technique of providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay that is comparable to the base process/product.
Vengrin’s known technique of providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through overlay material which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pasquero in view of Vengrin teach a touch screen haptic system providing feedback including vibration or sound. However, Pasquero in view of Vengrin fail to expressly teach wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback, thereby allowing the user the option to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen (emphasis added).
Wong teaches a known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback (Col. 3, lines 22-49 teach selectively customizing the type of feedback including any combination of haptic, visual and auditory).
Pasquero in view of Vengrin teaches a base process/product of a touch screen haptic system including vibration or sound which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the touch screen is selectively customizable to enable a user to receive feedback via one or more of haptic, sound and visual feedback, thereby allowing the user to optionally operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen. Wong teaches a known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback that is comparable to the base process/product.
Wong’s known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero in view of Vengrin and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the touch screen is selectively customizable to enable a user to receive feedback via one or more of haptic, sound and visual feedback, thereby allowing the user to optionally operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner notes usage of haptic or sound feedback allows user interaction and operation without having to rely on visual information.
With respect to claim 8, Pasquero in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teaches the touch screen haptic system of claim 5, discussed above, wherein the overlay material comprises a grid (Pasquero, Figs. 2 and 6).
With respect to claim 10, Pasquero in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teaches the touch screen haptic system of claim 5, discussed above, wherein the overlay material has different texturing around different open regions (Pasquero, Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 2-8 and paragraphs [0025]-[0030]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquero et al. (USPN 2010/0328231) in view of Wolter (USPN 9,965,116) in view of Vengrin (USPN 2019/0011998) and further in view of Wong (USPN 12,039,542).
With respect to claim 1, Pasquero teaches a touch screen haptic system (Figs. 1-11) for an aircraft (Examiner notes this appears to be intended use and no patentable weight is being given to the language. The usage of the touch screen “for an aircraft” does not require any specific structure. See MPEP 2111.02(II) for further details) the system comprising:
a number of touch activated actuators attached to a touch screen (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 2-8 and paragraphs [0022], [0027] and [0030] teach a plurality of key areas on the overlay), wherein each actuator comprises:
an outer shape (Figs. 2 and 6 teach rectangular and square outer portions); and
an inner membrane with an open area that exposes a touch activated actuator of the touch screen to touch (Figs. 1-11 and at least paragraphs [0022], [0023] and [0025] teaches the overlay is made of a thin sheet of material with cutouts/holes),
wherein the at least one of the number of actuators overlays a section of the touch screen responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator (Figs. 3-5 and paragraphs [0026]-[0029] teach contact with the actuator causes a change in capacitance on the touch surface. Examiner notes the capacitance of a touch increases with more pressure because it forces the button closer to the touch surface).
However, Pasquero fails to expressly teach an outer ring; wherein the at least one of the number of actuators overlays a section of the touch screen that triggers feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator; and wherein the type of feedback is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback, thereby allowing the user to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen (emphasis added).
Wolter teaches a known technique using a variety of shapes for actuators in a touch overlay, including circles/rings (Figs. 1-12. At least Fig. 5, item 510 and Figs. 6A-6E and Col. 9, line 4-Col. 10, line 36).
Pasquero teaches a base process/product of a touch overlay including actuators with outer shapes which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the actuator includes an outer ring. Wolter teaches a known technique of using a variety of shapes for actuators in a touch overlay, including circles/rings that is comparable to the base process/product.
Wolter’s known technique of using a variety of shapes for actuators in a touch overlay, including circles/rings would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the actuator comprising an outer ring which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pasquero in view of Wolter teach a touch overlay responsive to pressure exerted through at least one actuator. However, Pasquero in view of Wolter fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one of the number of actuators overlays a section of the touch screen that triggers feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator (emphasis added).
Vengrin teaches a known technique providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay (Figs. 1-16 and paragraph [0029]).
Pasquero in view of Wolter teaches a base process/product of a touch overlay responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas that trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the overlay material. Vengrin teaches a known technique of providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay that is comparable to the base process/product.
Vengrin’s known technique of providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero in view of Wolter and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the at least one of the number of actuators overlays a section of the touch screen that triggers feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin teach a touch screen haptic system providing feedback including vibration or sound. However, Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin fail to expressly teach wherein the type of feedback is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback, thereby allowing the user to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen (emphasis added).
Wong teaches a known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback (Col. 3, lines 22-49 teach selectively customizing the type of feedback including any combination of haptic, visual and auditory).
Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin teaches a base process/product of a touch screen haptic system providing feedback including vibration or sound which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the type of feedback is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback, thereby allowing the user to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen. Wong teaches a known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback that is comparable to the base process/product.
Wong’s known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the type of feedback is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback, thereby allowing the user to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner notes usage of haptic or sound feedback allows user interaction and operation without having to rely on visual information.
With respect to claim 2, Pasquero in view of Wolter in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teach the touch screen haptic system of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the outer ring of each actuator is rigid or semi-rigid (Pasquero, paragraph [0022] teaches various rigid and semi-rigid materials can be used to form the overlay).
With respect to claim 3, Pasquero in view of Wolter in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teach the touch screen haptic system of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the inner membrane is made of rubber (Pasquero, paragraph [0022] teaches the material includes rubber).
With respect to claim 11, Pasquero teaches a touch screen haptic system (Figs. 1-11) for a vehicle (Examiner notes this appears to be intended use and no patentable weight is being given to the language. The usage of the touch screen “for a vehicle” does not require any specific structure. See MPEP 2111.02(II) for further details) having a plurality of touch activated actuators for providing input (Figs. 1-11), the system comprising:
an overlay material placed over a touch screen (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 2-8 and paragraphs [0022]-[0030] teach a touch overlay), wherein a number of open areas are defined within the material to provide tactile access to the touch activated actuators (Figs. 1-11 and at least paragraphs [0022], [0023] and [0025] teaches the overlay is made of a thin sheet of material with cutouts/holes), and wherein portions of the open regions are sized and/or shaped to provide tactile feedback to a user regarding the approximate locations of the touch activated actuators (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 2-8 and paragraph [0027] teach small ridges or grooves may used to distinguish different touch areas); and
a number of membrane actuators attached to the touch screen, wherein the membrane actuators are located within the open regions of the overlay material (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 2-8 and paragraphs [0022], [0027] and [0030] teach a plurality of key areas on the overlay in open regions), and wherein each membrane actuator comprises an outer shape (Figs. 2 and 6 teach rectangular and square outer portions) and a flexible inner membrane with an open center that exposes a touch activated actuator to touch (Figs. 1-11 and at least paragraphs [0022], [0023] and [0025] teaches the overlay is made of a thin sheet of material with cutouts/holes),
wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas trigger responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator (Figs. 3-5 and paragraphs [0026]-[0029] teach contact with the actuator causes a change in capacitance on the touch surface. Examiner notes the capacitance of a touch increases with more pressure because it forces the button closer to the touch surface).
However, Pasquero fails to expressly wherein each membrane actuator comprises an outer ring; wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator; and wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and or/visual feedback, thereby allowing the user the option to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen (emphasis added).
Wolter teaches a known technique using a variety of shapes for actuators in a touch overlay, including circles/rings (Figs. 1-12. At least Fig. 5, item 510 and Figs. 6A-6E and Col. 9, line 4-Col. 10, line 36).
Pasquero teaches a base process/product of a touch overlay including actuators with outer shapes which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that each membrane actuator comprises an outer ring. Wolter teaches a known technique of using a variety of shapes for actuators in a touch overlay, including circles/rings that is comparable to the base process/product.
Wolter’s known technique of using a variety of shapes for actuators in a touch overlay, including circles/rings would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein each membrane actuator comprises an outer ring which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pasquero in view of Wolter teach a touch overlay responsive to pressure exerted through at least one actuator. However, Pasquero in view of Wolter fails to expressly teach wherein the membrane actuators overlay sections of the touch screen that trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator; and wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and or/visual feedback, thereby allowing the user the option to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen (emphasis added).
Vengrin teaches a known technique providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay (Figs. 1-16 and paragraph [0029]).
Pasquero in view of Wolter teaches a base process/product of a touch overlay responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that wherein the membrane actuators overlay sections of the touch screen that trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator. Vengrin teaches a known technique of providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay that is comparable to the base process/product.
Vengrin’s known technique of providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero in view of Wolter and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the membrane actuators overlay sections of the touch screen that trigger feedback responsive to pressure exerted through the at least one actuator which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin teach a touch screen haptic system providing feedback including vibration or sound. However, Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin fail to expressly teach wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and or/visual feedback, thereby allowing the user the option to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen (emphasis added).
Wong teaches a known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback (Col. 3, lines 22-49 teach selectively customizing the type of feedback including any combination of haptic, visual and auditory).
Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin teaches a base process/product of a touch screen haptic system providing feedback including vibration or sound which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and or/visual feedback, thereby allowing the user the option to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen. Wong teaches a known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback that is comparable to the base process/product.
Wong’s known technique wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and/or visual feedback would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero in view of Wolter and further in view of Vengrin and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the type of feedback triggered is selectively customizable by a user to enable the user to selectively decide to interchangeably receive feedback via haptic, sound and or/visual feedback, thereby allowing the user the option to operate the touch screen without having to look directly at the touch screen which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner notes usage of haptic or sound feedback allows user interaction and operation without having to rely on visual information.
The further limitations of claims 12 and 13 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 10, discussed above.
With respect to claim 20, Pasquero in view of Wolter in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teach the touch screen haptic system of claim 11, discussed above, wherein subsections of the overlay material proximal to the open areas overlay sections of the touch screen that trigger at least one of vibration or sound responsive to pressure exerted through the overlay material (Pasquero, Figs. 3-5 and paragraphs [0026]-[0029] and Wolter, Figs. 6A-6E and Col. 9, lines 52-58 teach contact/pressure on a touch screen; and Vengrin, Figs. 1-16 and paragraph [0029] teach providing feedback including sound and vibration to a user of a touch overlay).
The further limitations of claims 22 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 23 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 10, discussed above.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquero et al. (USPN 2010/0328231) in view of Vengrin (USPN 2019/0011998) in view of Wong (USPN 12,039,542) and further in view of Loeffler (USPN 2014/0015773).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Pasquero in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teach the touch screen haptic system of claim 5, discussed above.
However, Pasquero in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong fail to expressly teach (claim 6) wherein the overlay material is permanently attached to the touch screen; and (claim 7) wherein the overlay material is detachably attached to the touch screen (Examiner notes Pasquero appears to be silent on how the overlay is attached to the screen).
Loeffler teaches a known technique attaching a touch overlay to a touch screen either permanently or detachably (paragraph [0019] teaches the overlay can be glued or removably adhered).
Pasquero in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teaches a base process/product of a touch screen overlay which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that (claim 6) wherein the overlay material is permanently attached to the touch screen and (claim 7) wherein the overlay material is detachably attached to the touch screen. Loeffler teaches a known technique of attaching a touch overlay to a touch screen either permanently or detachably that is comparable to the base process/product.
Loeffler’s known technique of attaching a touch overlay to a touch screen either permanently or detachably would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Pasquero in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong and the results would have been predictable and resulted in (claim 6) wherein the overlay material is permanently attached to the touch screen and (claim 7) wherein the overlay material is detachably attached to the touch screen which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The further limitations of claim 21 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7, discussed above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquero et al. (USPN 2010/0328231) in view of Wolter (USPN 9,965,116) in view of Vengrin (USPN 2019/0011998) in view of Wong (USPN 12,039,542) and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”).
With respect to claim 14, Pasquero in view of Wolter in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teach the touch screen haptic system of claim 11, discussed above, wherein the inner membranes of the membrane actuators are made of rubber (Pasquero, paragraph [0022] teaches the material includes rubber).
However, Pasquero in view of Wolter in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong fail to expressly teach silicon rubber (emphasis added).
AAPA teaches the usage of silicon rubber (based on Official Notice that was not traversed).
Pasquero in view of Wolter in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong teaches a base process/product of a touch screen overlay including the usage of rubber which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that wherein the inner membranes of the membrane actuators are made of silicon rubber. AAPA teaches a known technique of using silicon rubber that is comparable to the base process/product.
AAPA’s known technique of using silicon rubber would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product Pasquero in view of Wolter in view of Vengrin and further in view of Wong and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the inner membranes of the membrane actuators are made of silicon rubber which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquero et al. (USPN 2010/0328231) in view of Wolter (USPN 9,965,116) in view of Vengrin (USPN 2019/0011998) in view of Wong (USPN 12,039,542) and further in view of Loeffler (USPN 2014/0015773).
The further limitations of claims 15 and 16 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 6 and 7, discussed above.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Paragraph [0193] of Kianzad (USPN 2025/0208712) teaches selectively customizing feedback.
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 ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830am-5pm PST.
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, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Antonio Xavier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622