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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and prosecuted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 March 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al., US PG-Pub 2024/0297443, hereinafter Ho, in view of Shin, USPN 11,360,564, hereinafter Shin.
Regarding Claim 1, Ho teaches a haptic interaction system (Figs. 9-11, and corresponding descriptions) comprising:
a sensing glove (wearable glove 910) configured to be worn on a user's hand to detect movement of the user’s hand (Fig. 9, and corresponding descriptions;
a soft gripper (band elements 1132) comprising a sensor-integrated actuator ([0084], “One or more of band elements 1132 may include any type or form of actuator suitable for providing haptic feedback”) and configured to be operated according to the movement of the user's hand (Figs. 9-11, and corresponding descriptions; [0075], [0082]);
a haptic device (vibrotactile devices 940) providing haptic feedback of the soft gripper to the user's hand (Figs. 9-11, and corresponding descriptions; [0075]-[0076]); and
a haptic interface (processor 960) that generates tracking control that synchronizes movement of the user’s hand with the movement of the soft gripper (Figs. 9-11, and corresponding descriptions; [0075]-[0079], [0081]-[0085]) and generates a haptic feedback signal from a physical contact of the soft gripper with an object (Figs. 9-11, and corresponding descriptions; [0075]-[0079], [0081]-[0085]).
However, Ho does not explicitly teach the haptic device comprising an ionic electroactive polymer actuator.
Shin teaches the haptic device comprising an ionic electroactive polymer actuator (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 51-67, “the vibrotactile actuator 304 include . . . ionic electroactive polymer materials”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the ionic electroactive polymers taught by Shin into the device taught by Ho in order to allow the actuator to be conformable around the user’s hand or wrist (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 51-67), thereby allowing for a variable device.
Regarding Claim 2, Ho, as modified by Shin, teaches the haptic interaction system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor-integrated actuator comprises an ionic electroactive polymer actuator (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 51-67, “the vibrotactile actuator 304 include . . . ionic electroactive polymer materials”), and a strain sensor coupled to the ionic electroactive polymer actuator of the sensor-integrated actuator (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 16-67).
Regarding Claim 3, Ho, as modified by Shin, teaches the haptic interaction system according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the ionic electroactive polymer actuator (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 51-67, “the vibrotactile actuator 304 include . . . ionic electroactive polymer materials”) and the strain sensor of the sensor-integrated actuator is encapsulated with an elastomer (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 16-67; Col. 7, ll. 45-65).
Regarding Claim 4, Ho, as modified by Shin, teaches the haptic interaction system according to claim 2, wherein the strain sensor comprises an eutectic gallium-indium alloy (Ho: [0031]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ho, as modified by Shin, teaches s the haptic interaction system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor-integrated actuator comprises a strain sensor printed on an elastomer film (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 16-67; Col. 7, ll. 45-65), and an ionic electroactive polymer actuator laminated on the strain sensor (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 51-67, “the vibrotactile actuator 304 include . . . ionic electroactive polymer materials”), wherein the ionic electroactive polymer actuator of the sensor-integrated actuator is sealed with an elastomer (Shin: Col. 5, ll. 16-67; Col. 7, ll. 45-65).
Regarding Claim 13, Ho, as modified by Shin, teaches the haptic interaction system according to claim 1, wherein the sensing glove comprises a strain sensor that detects movement of joint of a user's finger (Shin: Fig. 1, and corresponding descriptions, Col. 5, ll. 16-67; Col. 7, ll. 45-65; Col. 11, ll. 55-63; Col. 18, ll. 44-65).
Regarding Claim 14, Ho, as modified by Shin, teaches the haptic interaction system according to claim 13, wherein the strain sensor included in the sensing glove comprises an eutectic gallium-indium alloy (Ho: [0031]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ho, as modified by Shin, teaches the haptic interaction system according to claim 1, wherein the haptic device is mounted on a user's fingertip (Shin: Fig. 1, and corresponding descriptions, Col. 3, ll. 28-44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Specifically, the limitation “wherein the ionic electroactive polymer actuator comprises a pair of flexible electrodes that face each other, and a polymer electrolyte membrane interposed between the pair of flexible electrodes, wherein the polymer electrolyte membrane comprises a polymer that comprises a structural unit represented by [the provided chemical structure]; wherein in Chemical Formula 1, R1 and R2 are, each independently, -OH, -COOH, -SO3H, -PO3H2, -NH2, imidazolyl group, -SO2N(X1)SO2CF3, or -CN, wherein X1 is hydrogen, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C30 alkyl group, and wherein R1 and R2 are located adjacent to each other” is considered novel.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Specifically, the limitation “wherein the ionic electroactive polymer actuator comprises a pair of flexible electrodes that face each other, and a polymer electrolyte membrane interposed between the pair of flexible electrodes, wherein the polymer electrolyte membrane comprises a polymer that comprises a structural unit represented by [the provided chemical structure]; wherein in Chemical Formula 1, R1 and R2 are, each independently, -OH, -COOH, -SO3H, -PO3H2, -NH2, imidazolyl group, -SO2N(X1)SO2CF3, or -CN, wherein X1 is hydrogen, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C30 alkyl group, and wherein R1 and R2 are located adjacent to each other” is considered novel..
As such, modification of the prior art of record can only be motivated by hindsight reasoning, or by changing the intended use and function of the prior art themselves. Therefore, it is not clear that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would have made the necessary modifications to the prior art of record to encompass the limitations set forth in the present application. Moreover, none of the prior arts of record, taken either alone or in combination, anticipate nor render obvious the claimed inventions. Hence, claims 16-20 are allowable over the prior arts of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN T REED whose telephone number is (571)272-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0800-1800.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
STEPHEN T. REED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Stephen T. Reed/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights