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 .
ART REJECTION:
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ulrich(USPGPUB 2011/0140870).
-- With regards to claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Ulrich includes:
1) a sensor disposed within the medium having a size and shape is met by the sensor configured to sense the pressure within reservoir(28)(see: Ulrich, sec[0030]);
2) circuitry in communication with the sensor is met by the bus(18), which is connected to the sensor via input/output devices(16)(seeL Ulrich, sec[0016]);
3) a plurality of traces in communication with the circuitry, the traces having properties that alter when the size or shape of the medium changes is met by the deformable membrane or reservoir(28), which is connected to drivers(22,24)(see: Ulrich, sec[0028]);
4) a processor configured to:
i) determine changes in the size or shape of the medium based on a unique pattern of the traces generated by the changes in the size or shape of the medium is met by the processing device(12)(see: Ulrich, sec[0020]), which is connected to bus(18), and receives signals from connected components to decide haptic effects, based on magnitude, frequ3ency, duration and other parameters of the haptic effects(see: Ulrich, sec[0020]);
ii) optimize a frequency of a haptic harmonic that generates a standing wave on a haptic actuator proximate to the medium is met by the memory device(14), which stores a program that is executed by the processor, as to include haptic effect profiles for actuation of the input output devices, so as to create standing waves(See: Ulrich, secs[0021-0022]).
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the medium is at least a portion of one of a piece of clothing, a textile, a seat, or a desk surface is met by the devices of Ulrich being used as haptic output devices in clothing or other wearable material(see: Ulrich, sec[0012]).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the circuitry is at least one of electrical circuitry or optical circuitry is met by the electrical circuitry as seen in figs 1 and 2(see: Ulrich, sec[0026]).
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) the processor is one or an FPGA, an SSIC, a microprocessor, or dedicated logic is met by the processing device(12) being a ASIC(see: Ulrich, sec[0020]), which would have constituted a microprocessor.
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) the size is a length or a volume is met by the deformable membrane of the reservoir(28) having a configuration that effects along the length of the membrane(see: Ulrich, sec[0028]), which would inherently read on the claimed size of the membrane.
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the medium is made of a material that supports formation of standing wave is met by the textiles used in the system, allowing creation of standing waves in the liquid medium(see: Ulrich, sec[0022]).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the standing wave can be modulated by at least one of a half wavelength or quarter wavelength is met by the memory(14) which stores programs that control algorithms for creating the frequency of specific wave patterns(see: Ulrich, sec[0022]), and would have readily modulated the standing wave by one half, one quarter, or any wavelength as desired by one of ordinary skill
-- Claims 12 and 13 recite a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1, and therefore, claim 12 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 8-9,14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich.
-- With regards to claims 8 and 9, Ulrich does not disclose:
1) a plurality of cuttable regions connected to the plurality of traces such that each of the traces terminates at corresponding cuttable region;
2) detect the unique pattern of the traces generated by the changes in the size or shape of the medium based on the removal of one or more of the cuttable regions.
Although not specifically taught by Ulrich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a plurality of cuttable regions connected to the plurality of traces, such that the traces terminate at corresponding cuttable regions, because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the haptic devices would have been readily incorporated into textiles, garments, and other types of configurable materials. Therefore, it would have constituted a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill to employ a plurality of cuttable regions that would have accommodated the traces regions. Since garments and textiles come in many various configurations, and therefore, to place the traces into cuttable sections would have been necessary in order to form the wearable haptic garment, in order to give the garment shape and function.
-- With regards to claims 14-16, and 20, Ulrich does not specifically disclose:
1) inputting the detected changes into an AI model that predicts optimal adjustments to the frequency for the haptic actuator.
2) optimizing the frequency is based at least in part on updated haptic feedback parameters based on the optimal adjustments predicted by the AI model
3) the AI model predicts the optimal adjustments to at least one of the frequency, an amplitude, and a waveform
4) updating the AI model at least in part by adjusting internal parameters or algorithms based on data obtained related to at least one of a user’s response or effectiveness of the predicted optimal adjustments.
Although an AI model is not specifically taught by Ulrich, Ulrich does teach that an ASIC processing device(12) is utilized, and a memory device including programs to create particular haptic effects are utilized(see: Ulrich, secs[0020-0022]). Furthermore, Ulrich teaches that the programs stored in memory device(14), take into account the dimensions of the reservoirs, such that certain wave patterns may be formed, and algorithms used to create frequency calculations for creating specific wave patterns(see: Ulrich, sec[0022]). The examiner takes Official Notice that use of AI as a means for providing implementation of programs and instructions for operating electrical and systems that are controlled by microprocessors is well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate AI into the programming and microprocessors utilized to control the functions of the system of Ulrich, since Ulrich already desires to utilize algorithms to provide specific wave patterns in the system, and AI would have readily enhanced the ability for the implementation of the programming to control the haptic devices in the system of Ulrich.
-- With regards to claim 17, Ulrich does not disclose:
1) the optimizing the frequency is based on haptic feedback parameters extracted from a look-up table associated with size detection.
However, Ulrich does teach that programs stored in memory device(14) take into account dimensions of reservoir designed to contain the haptic medium(see: Ulrich, sec[0022]). This inherently implies that some form of lookup table would have been utilized in order to ensure that the proper wave patterns would have been applied to the medium, based on the particular dimensions of the reservoir designed.
Claim(s) 10, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al(USPGPUB 2021/0103335 A1).
-- With regards to claim 10, Ulrich does not teach:
1) an environmental sensor that detects at least one of temperature, humidity, or pressure.
2)
Although not taught by Ulrich, use of environmental sensors that detect temperature, humidity, or pressure is well known. In related art, Wang teaches electronic devices with haptic output, which are included in haptic wearable devices is well known. In related art, Wang teaches electronic devices with haptic output, which include temperature sensor(94)(see: Wang, sec[0051]) in the wearable device, to provide haptic output to a user.
Since the use of use of haptic devices with environmental sensors is well known, as taught by Ulrich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the sensors(94) of Wang, into the device of Ulrich, since this would have provided a more comprehensive means of determining conditions and providing pertinent output to a user of the device.
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 12, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 10. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 10 and 12 above.
-- Claim 19 depends from claim 12, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 11 and 12 above, as well as:
1) the actuator producing sound is met by the actuator or Wang producing sound from speaker port(18)(see: Wang, sec[0029]), which would have readily been incorporated into the device of Ulrich.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM 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, 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686