CTFR 18/597,239 CTFR 89661 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1. This is in response to amendment filed on 02/24/2026 in which claim 1-20 are presented for examination. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1 and 14 are in independent form. Response to Arguments 3. Applicant's amendment filed 02/24/2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance. In regards to independent claims, the Applicant stated that “"detecting a user gesture . . . determining a type or category of the user gesture ... selecting ... a particular haptic feedback effect from a suite of haptic effects based on the type or category of the user gesture and the type of application," Applicant respectfully submits Park and Druck, taken alone or in any combination, do not teach or suggest each and every feature of claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not clarify the type or category of the user gesture. Also, “or” makes category optional. Therefore, any gesture such hover, touch, gaze teaches the claimed limitation. Park teaches “different vibrations depending on the type of the object being selected or hovered over on the touch screen display 190 (for example, an image, a video, an SMS message, an MMS message and an E-mail)”. Park also teaches each object type such as email, video, picture has a unique haptic pattern (such as haptic pattern 1-6) shown in fig 6A-B. When user makes an input on an email application, user receives particular haptic feedback versus haptic feedback from the message application. Therefore, examiner found the Applicant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. While the amendments as presented do not present allowable subject matter, in the interest of compact prosecution, examiner feels that a further interview may help to expedite prosecution of the application. Examiner is available for an interview at Applicant's convenience at the number below should Applicant wish to discuss the case further. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-07 4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Display module, interface module, Haptic feedback module in claim 14. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim s 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US PG Pub 2014/0168124) published on June 19, 2014 in view of Druck et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0143682) published on May 22, 2014 . As per claim 1, Park teaches A method of providing haptic feedback to a user of a computing device, the method comprising: detecting a user gesture corresponding to user input (Para[0049-0051] discloses hover input on a touch screen and displays a predetermined hovering input effect corresponding to the hovering input event on the touch screen, as taught by Park) ; determining a type or category of the user gesture (Para[0049] e.g. hover gesture, as taught by Park) ; determining, by one or more processors, a type of application that the user input is being performed on (Para[0051] A predetermined haptic pattern may be set differently depending on the type of the object. For example, a haptic pattern may be set differently depending on whether an object is a video or an image, and on the genre of the video, if the object is video. In addition, if the type of an object is E-mail, an SMS message, an MMS message, as taught by Park) ; selecting, by the one or more processor s, a particular haptic feedback effect a suite of haptic effects (fig 6B shows multiple haptic effect patter such as 1-6, as taught by Park) based on the type or category of user gesture and the type of application (Para[0049-0052] fig 6A-B user making input and haptic pattern is selected based on the object such as E-mail, an SMS message, an MMS message corresponding to the input such as hover input type, as taught by Park) ; and causing, by the one or more processors, a haptic feedback module of the computing device to provide providing the particular haptic feedback effect for sensation by the user (Para[0049-0052] receives a control signal associated with a haptic pattern from the mobile terminal 100, analyzes the received control signal, and outputs a haptic feedback to the user based on the analysis. As a result, the user may feel vibrations through the input tool 168 being held in the user's hand, as taught by Park) . Park teaches different haptic patterns may be set by selecting one of setting buttons 621 to 626 according to the type of an object but Park does not explicitly teach from a suite of haptic effects On the other hand, Druck teaches a suite of haptic effects (Para[0103-0104] the haptic effect identified in the haptic library relates to a particular vibration pattern, as taught by Druck). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Park invention with the teaching of Druck because doing so would result in more precise and efficient way to notify the user of the corresponding input. As per claim 14, Park teaches A computing device, comprising: a display module configured to display a user interface to a user of the computing device (fig 2 shows interface of a device, as taught by Park) ; a user interface module configured to receive user input from the user (Para[0011] hover gesture from the user, as taught by Park) ; a haptic feedback module configured to provide haptic effects to the user (Para[0049-0052] haptic effect is generated based on the gesture, as taught by Park) ; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory (Para[0045] disclose memory, as taught by Park) , the display module (fig 1 e.g. 190, as taught by Park) , the user interface module and the haptic feedback module (fig 1 e.g. 190 and 130), as taught by Park) , the one or more processors being configured to: detect a user gesture corresponding to user input (Para[0049-0051] discloses hover input on a touch screen and displays a predetermined hovering input effect corresponding to the hovering input event on the touch screen, as taught by Park) ; determine a type or category of the user gesture (Para[0049] e.g. hover gesture, as taught by Park) ; determine a type of application that the user input is being performed on (Para[0051] A predetermined haptic pattern may be set differently depending on the type of the object. For example, a haptic pattern may be set differently depending on whether an object is a video or an image, and on the genre of the video, if the object is video. In addition, if the type of an object is E-mail, an SMS message, an MMS message, as taught by Park) ; select, a particular haptic feedback effect a suite of haptic effects (fig 6B shows multiple haptic effect patter such as 1-6, as taught by Park) based on the type or category of user gesture and the type of application (Para[0049-0052] fig 6A-B user making input and haptic pattern is selected based on the object such as E-mail, an SMS message, an MMS message corresponding to the input such as hover input type, as taught by Park) ; and causing, by the one or more processors, a haptic feedback module of the computing device to provide providing the particular haptic feedback effect for sensation by the user (Para[0049-0052] receives a control signal associated with a haptic pattern from the mobile terminal 100, analyzes the received control signal, and outputs a haptic feedback to the user based on the analysis. As a result, the user may feel vibrations through the input tool 168 being held in the user's hand, as taught by Park) . Park teaches different haptic patterns may be set by selecting one of setting buttons 621 to 626 according to the type of an object but Park does not explicitly teach from a suite of haptic effects On the other hand, Druck teaches a suite of haptic effects (Para[0103-0104] the haptic effect identified in the haptic library relates to a particular vibration pattern, as taught by Druck). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Park invention with the teaching of Druck because doing so would result in more precise and efficient way to notify the user of the corresponding input. As per claim 2, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein the user input is associated with a program of the computing device (Para[0049-0052] haptic pattern is selected based on the application E-mail, an SMS message, an MMS message, as taught by Park) . As per claim 3, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein one or more haptic effects of the suite of haptic effects are configured to provide supplemental feedback to a visual cue presented to the user during interaction with the program (Para[102-0111][0125], as taught by Park) . As per claim 4 and 18, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein one or more haptic effects of the suite of haptic effects are configured to provide supplemental feedback to an audible cue presented to the user during interaction with the program (Para[104] e.g. auditory effects, as taught by Park) . As per claim 5 and 19, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein the suite of haptic effects is curated according to at least one of the (i) type or category of the user interaction gesture (Para[0049][0125] hovering or selection, as taught by Park) or (ii) the type of application to be run on the computing device. As per claim 8, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves moving between two or more virtual objects, the particular haptic feedback effect is a tick sensation (Para[0091] Such listing-up/down action represents a fast movement (i.e., flicks up and down or swipes up and down) on the touch screen. If the scroll bar is pull up or down using the input tool 168, the mobile terminal 100 transmits a control signal to the input tool 168 for increasing or decreasing the vibration strength as the scroll bar is closer to its first position (for example, the top or bottom of the touch screen 190), and transmits a control signal to the input tool 168 for decreasing or increasing the vibration strength as the scroll bar is close to its end (for example, the top or bottom of the touch screen 190. Examiner interprets the specific haptic sensations and specific input type as non-functionally descriptive limitations. The type of sensations in response to different input types or categories therefore amount to non-functional limitations. In this case the names of the different haptic effects are descriptive in nature and have no functional relationship that warrants patentable weight. Further Park explicitly teaches [0104] The haptic patterns are not limited to the above-described illustrative haptic patterns, but may be applied to all kinds of other vibrations that the user may feel, as taught by Park). As per claim 9, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves moving between two or more virtual objects, the particular haptic feedback effect is a knock sensation (Para([0091] Such listing-up/down action represents a fast movement (i.e., flicks up and down or swipes up and down) on the touch screen. If the scroll bar is pull up or down using the input tool 168, the mobile terminal 100 transmits a control signal to the input tool 168 for increasing or decreasing the vibration strength as the scroll bar is closer to its first position (for example, the top or bottom of the touch screen 190), and transmits a control signal to the input tool 168 for decreasing or increasing the vibration strength as the scroll bar is close to its end (for example, the top or bottom of the touch screen 190. Examiner interprets the specific haptic sensations and specific input type as non-functionally descriptive limitations. The type of sensations in response to different input types or categories therefore amount to non-functional limitations. In this case the names of the different haptic effects are descriptive in nature and have no functional relationship that warrants patentable weight. Further Park explicitly teaches [0104] The haptic patterns are not limited to the above-described illustrative haptic patterns, but may be applied to all kinds of other vibrations that the user may feel, as taught by Park). As per claim 11, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves adjusting a control feature, the particular haptic feedback effect is a tick sensation (Para[0091] If the scroll bar is pull up or down using the input tool 168, the mobile terminal 100 transmits a control signal to the input tool 168 for increasing or decreasing the vibration strength as the scroll bar is closer to its first position (for example, the top or bottom of the touch screen 190), and transmits a control signal to the input tool 168 for decreasing or increasing the vibration strength as the scroll bar is close to its end (for example, the top or bottom of the touch screen 190. Examiner interprets the specific haptic sensations and specific input type as non-functionally descriptive limitations. The type of sensations in response to different input types or categories therefore amount to non-functional limitations. In this case the names of the different haptic effects are descriptive in nature and have no functional relationship that warrants patentable weight. Further Park explicitly teaches [0104] The haptic patterns are not limited to the above-described illustrative haptic patterns, but may be applied to all kinds of other vibrations that the user may feel, as taught by Park) . As per claim 12, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves the user input either exceeding a force threshold or a temporal threshold, the particular haptic feedback effect is a deep click sensation (Para[0125] Referring to FIGS. 11A to 11C, a variety of objects are displayed on screen 1110 including an E-mail 1111, a photo 1112, a Word.RTM. file 1113 and video 1114. If a photo 1121 is selected by hovering the input tool 168 over the photo 1121, the mobile terminal 100 determines that the object is a photo, by identifying the object (i.e., the photo 1121) corresponding to the position where the hovering has occurred. Subsequently, the mobile terminal 100 displays a preview image by zooming in the selected photo, and transmits at least one control signal associated with a haptic pattern that was set in advance for the photo, to the input tool 168. Thereafter, the input tool 168 vibrates in the haptic pattern corresponding to the received control signal, allowing the user to feel the vibrations of the predetermined haptic pattern. Examiner interprets the specific haptic sensations and specific input type as non-functionally descriptive limitations. The type of sensations in response to different input types or categories therefore amount to non-functional limitations. In this case the names of the different haptic effects are descriptive in nature and have no functional relationship that warrants patentable weight. Further Park explicitly teaches [0104] The haptic patterns are not limited to the above-described illustrative haptic patterns, but may be applied to all kinds of other vibrations that the user may feel, as taught by Park) . As per claim 13 and 20, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein one or more settings associated with the suite of haptic effects are adjustable by the user (Figures 6A-8C, see also Figure 6B and 6C, User can adjust the vibration strength, cycle, and pattern, as taught by Park) . As per claim 15, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein the haptic feedback module is part of a user interface component of the computing device, the user interface component including at least one of a trackpad, a touch screen, a mousepad, a keyboard or a stylus (fig 1 e.g. 168, as taught by Park) . As per claim 16, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein the user input is associated with a program of the computing device (Para[0049-0052], as taught by Park) . As per claim 17, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein each haptic effect of the suite of haptic effects is configured to provide supplemental feedback to an audible cue presented to the user during interaction with the program(Para[104] e.g. auditory effects, as taught by Park) 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US PG Pub 2014/0168124) published on June 19, 2014 in view of Druck et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0143682) published on May 22, 2014 in further view of MODARRES(SU PG Pub 2014/0320393) published on October 30, 2014 . As per claim 6, the combination of Park and Druck does not teach wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves splitting a screen in the user interface, the particular haptic feedback effect is a snap sensation. On the other hand, MODARRES teaches wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves splitting a screen in the user interface, the particular haptic feedback effect is a snap sensation (fig 1Para[0084][0022] provide a haptic feedback of a snapping sensation, as taught by MODARRES) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Park and Druck invention with the teaching of MODARRES because doing so would result in easier to the user to flex and manipulate the device. As per claim 7, the combination of Park and Druck teaches wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves maximizing a window in the user interface (Para[0125- 0127], as taught by Park) , the particular haptic feedback effect is a snap sensation (fig 1Para[0084][0022] provide a haptic feedback of a snapping sensation, as taught by MODARRES) . 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US PG Pub 2014/0168124) published on June 19, 2014 in view of Druck et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0143682) published on May 22, 2014 in further view of Barlow (US PG Pub 2021/0303116) . As per claim 10, the combination of Park and Druck does not teach wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves tearing off a tab from a virtual window. the particular haptic feedback effect is a tick sensation. On the other hand, Barlow teaches wherein when the type or category of interaction the user gesture involves tearing off a tab from a virtual window. the particular haptic feedback effect is a tick sensation (Para[0029] and [0040] In another example, a second tab 172 may be moved 166 to another section 152 of the context group container 130 to create a URI entry 162 with an image representing the URI. The moving of the URI into the context group container 130 may be a graphical drag and drop operation. Other types of graphical user interface (GUI) operations may be used to move the URIs from the group of tabs 180 that is a list interface control to the context group container 130. For example, on a mobile device, using a finger depression operation (e.g., a long touch or force touch with pressure sensors) on tabs in a mobile device may move the URI to the context group container. Similarly, a click and hold operation on a tab in a mobile device or a selection (press once) until haptic feedback or haptic touch (e.g. selection until mobile device vibration) occurs may be used to move the URI to the context group container 130). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Barlow with the method of Park. Motivation to do so would have been to provide further types of touch input with respective type of haptic feedback from a finite number of possibilities with expected results. Examiner interprets the specific haptic sensations and specific input type as non-functionally descriptive limitations. The type of sensations in response to different input types or categories therefore amount to non-functional limitations. In this case the names of the different haptic effects are descriptive in nature and have no functional relationship that warrants patentable weight. Further Park explicitly teaches [0104] The haptic patterns are not limited to the above-described illustrative haptic patterns, but may be applied to all kinds of other vibrations that the user may feel. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM EST. 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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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. /RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Saturday, May 30, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 2 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 3 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 4 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 5 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 6 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 7 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 8 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 9 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 10 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 11 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/597,239 Page 12 Art Unit: 2174
Prosecution Insights