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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected due to terms such as "establishing", "defining", "updating" or "data portions" or "channel" or "nature of data portion" as indefinite as they do not properly show or make clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art the metes and bounds of the claimed invention in order to avoid infringement. Merely having a sensor array "establishes" it. Any processing of signals would be "updating of data portions". Having a control field would be "defining" a control field. The terms do not show what is to be considered a clear limitation to a person of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 2 having a channel be faster than another channel would not make clear to a person of ordinary skill what is being practiced. It might mean wired vs wireless or it might mean delayed trigger or it might mean a longer wire vs a shorter wire. The claim does not show how the invention is to be practiced and where the boundaries of the invention lie.
Regarding claim 3 and 5 the term time data can mean a delayed trigger or saved instructions or pre made data or it can mean anything the inventor intends. The claim does not show how the invention is to be practiced and where the boundaries of the invention lie.
In light of the extensive 112 rejection and the inability to properly interpret the claim language the rejection is made based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Additionally applicant is also advised that the claims in the present application are not disclosed in the provisional application and there is no support for the present claims in the provisional application. Therefore, the parent application does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, under 35 U.S.C. 120 for the design claimed in the present application and the present application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshi (IEEE Transactions on Haptics; 2010, Pages 155-165).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshi teaches establishing a transducer array having a plurality of ultrasonic transducers with known relative positions and orientations[Abstract, Fig 2 has transducers];
defining a control field having a known spatial relationship relative to the transducer array[Abstract, Introduction and Fig 1 have a control field];
using update data portions, updating a time-of-flight for each of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers so that a signal emitted from each of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers arrives at the control field at approximately the same time[Sec 2.2 has focusing using phase delay of transducers meaning the focal point is created using delays meaning the time of flight must be adjusted];
wherein the updating comprises: based on the nature of the update data portion, allocating the update data portion to a first channel or a second channel to communicate with each of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers[Fig 2 shows various wiring meaning channels];
wherein the first channel is used when the nature of the update data portion relates to the location of the control field[Fig 2 shows wiring for controlling the transducers meaning it controls the location of the control field];
and wherein the second channel is used when the nature of the updated data portion does not relate to the location of the control field.[Fig 17a shows hand tracking system]
While Hoshi does not explicitly state that signal emitted from each of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers arrives at the control field at approximately the same time, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that focusing the signals would mean that meaning they arrive at the same time.
Regarding claim 2, Hoshi teaches wherein communication using the first channel is faster than communication using the second channel.[ Fig 2 shows wiring for controlling the transducers meaning it controls the location of the control field and Fig 17a shows hand tracking system meaning they are different meaning they can have different times]
Regarding claim 3, Hoshi teaches adding time data to the update data portion, wherein the time data is related to a future event for the control field.[Introduction has short time delays, 3.1 has precalculated table for phase delays meaning time data for future event ]
Regarding claim 4, Hoshi teaches wherein the updated data portion relates to at least one of: instantaneous change of a transducer driving signal to a preloaded state, powering the transducer array, phase shifting at the control field, triggering an external device, and generating debugging information. [3.1 has precalculated table, meaning preloaded state driving the array, 3.2 factor 5 has discretization errors meaning generating debugging information]
Regarding claim 5, Hoshi teaches adding time data to the update data portion, wherein the time data is related to a past event for the control field. [Introduction, 3.1, 3.4, Fig 13, 14, 16 has movement of focal point meaning it can be updated to move which combined with the hand tracker in 5 has it being interactable means it moves based on events]
Regarding claim 6, Hoshi teaches wherein the updated data portion relates to at least one of: recording a test signal, component failure, and processing information through an input device.[Section 4 list various tests and processes]
Regarding claim 7, While Hoshi does not explicitly state communication from the first channel to each of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers occurs in a staggered fashion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that focusing the signals would mean that meaning the activation of each transducer for phase delay means communication from the first channel to each of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers occurs in a staggered fashion. [Sec 2.2 has focusing using phase delay of transducers meaning the focal point is created using delays meaning the time of flight must be adjusted and transducers are staggered]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645