DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Claims 20-37 is new.
Claims 1-19 are cancelled.
Claims 20-37 are pending.
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 20-37 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.
Regarding the claims, various terms such as first or second data, updating data, near-instantaneous effects, communication channel, one action, control a state, event, are 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. Any processing of signals would be data and updating the same, any signal being sent or activation or change would be a “near-instantaenous” effect. Any change in power, intensity or direction would control a state. The first and second data/communication channels appear to read on one another. Any wire would imply a communication channel. The terms do not show what is to be considered a clear limitation to a person of ordinary skill. 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. Any processing or change based on any input or output would be considered an action. As such the terms do not make clear to a person of ordinary skill the metes and bounds of the claim limitation in order to avoid infringement.
Regarding claim 21 and 34 having an update rate be higher than another would not make clear to a person of ordinary skill what is being practiced..
Regarding claim 26 the claim describes the action but the claim has an ‘or’ statement and unclear conditions. A person of ordinary skill could read the claim as requiring only one of the limitations or only generating debugging information or all the limitations. Moreover it is unclear what would be meant by triggering an external device and such a limitation is the equivalent of claiming a device ‘means’.
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 20-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshi (IEEE Transactions on Haptics; 2010, Pages 155-165) in view of Carter (US 20160249150 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hoshi teaches A method for controlling a transducer array, the transducer array having a plurality of ultrasonic transducers with known relative positions and orientations and being driven at least by a driving device to control at least one transducer of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers[Abstract, Fig 2 has transducers], the method comprising:
creating, using the driving device and the transducer array, an acoustic field at a control point in a space defined by the transducer array[Abstract, Introduction and Fig 1 have a control field];
sending, to the driving device through a first communication channel, first data indicating at least one action to be applied instantly by the at least one transducer[Fig 2 shows various wiring meaning channels controlling the transducers meaning it implements actions on the transducer]
sending, to the driving device through a second communication channel, second data to control a state of the at least one transducer[Fig 2 shows various wiring meaning channels for controlling the transducers meaning it controls the state of the one transducer];
and creating one or more near-instantaneous effects based on the first data and/or the second data by updating the first data more frequently than the second data[Fig 17a-c shows various effects. Signal transmission by wires is nearly instantaneous and it would obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have multiple wires and update as frequently as needed to optimize performance].
While Hoshi implies but does not explicitly state that first data is updated more frequently than the second data.
Carter teaches updating frequently[0012, 0077-0078 has updating faster than frequency]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer array of Hoshi with the updating of Carter in order to make an array with reduced noise.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified various update rates, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 33, Hoshi teaches a transducer array, the transducer array having a plurality of ultrasonic transducers with known relative positions and orientations; [Abstract, Fig 2 has transducers]:
at least one driving device to control at least one transducer of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers, and a controlling device configured to create, using the at least one driving device and the transducer array, an acoustic field at a control point in a space defined by the transducer array [Abstract, Introduction and Fig 1 have a control field];
wherein the controlling device is configured to: send, to the at least one driving device through a first communication channel, first data indicating at least one action to be applied instantly by the at least one transducer; [Fig 2 shows various wiring meaning channels controlling the transducers meaning it implements actions on the transducer]
send, to the at least one driving device through a second communication channel, second data to control a state of the at least one transducer; [Fig 2 shows various wiring meaning channels for controlling the transducers meaning it controls the state of the one transducer];
and create one or more near-instantaneous effects based on the first data and/or the second data by updating the first data more frequently than the second data. [Fig 17a-c shows various effects. Signal transmission by wires is nearly instantaneous and it would obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have multiple wires and update as frequently as needed to optimize performance].
While Hoshi implies but does not explicitly state that first data is updated more frequently than the second data.
Carter teaches updating frequently[0012, 0077-0078 has updating faster than frequency]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer array of Hoshi with the updating of Carter in order to make an array with reduced noise.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified various update rates, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21 and 34, Hoshi as modified, implies, but does not explicitly teach wherein an update rate of the first data is higher than an update rate of the second data[Fig 17a-c shows various effects. It would obvious to a person of ordinary skill to update as frequently as needed to optimize performance. Moreover the claim limitation does not meaningfully limit the claim from the independent claim]
Carter teaches wherein an update rate of the first data is higher than an update rate of the second data [0012, 0077-0078 has updating faster than frequency]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer array of Hoshi with the updating of Carter in order to make an array with reduced noise.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified various update rates, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233)
Regarding claims 22 and 35, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein the second data is data having a longer application time than the first data.[ Introduction has short time delays, 3.1 has precalculated table for phase delays meaning time data for future event meaning longer application time Fig 17b and 17c show various interactable functions that last longer different times]
Regarding claims 23 and 36, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one action indicated in the first data modifies a location of the control point and/or modulates an amplitude of the acoustic field at the control point[Section 2, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3 has amplitude changing on control points]
Carter teaches teaches wherein the at least one action indicated in the first data modifies a location of the control point and/or modulates an amplitude of the acoustic field at the control point [Abstract, 0109-0113 has control point location and amplitude modulation]
Regarding claims 24 and 37, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein the first data comprises a triggering command specifying the at least one action, the triggering command including a time stamp indicating a target time of occurrence of an effect on the control point and/or the acoustic field caused by the at least one action[Introduction has short time delays, 3.1 has precalculated table for phase delays meaning time data for future event meaning target times for triggers]
Regarding claim 26, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one action specified in the triggering command triggers: an instantaneous change of a transducer driving signal of the at least one transducer to a preloaded state, a power-on or power-off of the driving device, a phase shifting of the at least one acoustic wave generated by the at least one transducer, an external device, or a generation of 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 27, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein the transducer array is driven by a plurality of driving devices including the driving device, the plurality of driving devices configured to receive the first data and the second data through the first communication channel and the second communication channel,[Fig 2 shows various wiring meaning channels controlling the transducers meaning it implements actions on the transducer] respectively, wherein the method further comprises: sending the first data to the plurality of driving devices in turn, wherein the driving devices of the plurality of driving devices are configured to adapt a triggering time of the at least one action based on the time stamp included in the first data.[Introduction has short time delays, 3.1 has precalculated table for phase delays meaning time data for future event meaning target times for triggers]
Regarding claim 28, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein at least some driving devices of the plurality of driving devices are configured to wait before triggering the at least one action based on the time stamp. [Introduction has short time delays, 3.1 has precalculated table for phase delays meaning time data for future event meaning target times for triggers]
Regarding claim 29, Hoshi, as modified, wherein the driving device is configured to individually control multiple transducers of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers, the multiple transducers including the at least one transducer, wherein the driving device is configured to trigger an application of the at least one action at each transducer of the multiple transducers in a staggered fashion so that an effect of the at least one action applied by each of the multiple transducers occurs at the target time. [Abstract has control of multiple transducers in a coordinated fashion. Introduction has short time delays, 3.1 has precalculated table for phase delays meaning time data for future event meaning target times for triggers meaning coordinated or staggered fashion across multiple transducers]
Regarding claim 30, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein the driving device is configured to timely offset an application time of the at least one action by one or more transducers among the multiple transducers based on a respective time of flight associated with each of the one or more transducers for the control point to ensure occurrence of the effect at the target time. [Introduction has short time delays, 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; 3.1 has precalculated table for phase delays meaning time data for future event meaning target times for triggers; Sec 2.]
Regarding claim 31, Hoshi, as modified, teaches sending, by the driving device, third data to another device to signify that an event has occurred, the third data comprising a second time stamp associated with the event. [Fig 17.1 has hand tracker used with the tactile system meaning it is another device. Introduction and Fig 1 has person monitoring and testing device meaning the system is giving feedback on its performance and errors]
Regarding claim 32, Hoshi, as modified, teaches wherein the third data triggers one or more microphones to start recording a test signal, indicates a component failure, or requests some processed information from an input device. [Fig 17.1 has hand tracker used with the tactile system meaning it is another device. Introduction and Fig 1 has person monitoring and recording done. Sec 3.2, 4.1 and Fig 15 involve calculation of error meaning the system gives feedback for the experiments]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
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 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
Prosecution Insights