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 .
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- 23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “whereby adjustment of a relative phase angle between rotation of the shafts is configured to modulate a combined pure torque vibration output from a maximum amplitude when the shafts are in-phase to approximately zero amplitude when the shafts are in antiphase.” The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of manipulating shafts in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 2 4, 7 and 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term substantially is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2- 21 and 23 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claims 1 and 22, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 recites “the masses attached to each motor shaft have substantially identical inertia tensors.” Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for defining the term inertia tensors (“the concept of inertia tensors to describe the rotational properties of the masses used. An inertia tensor is a mathematical representation that defines how the mass distribution of an object resists rotational motion about various axes.” Spec. ¶. [0293]), does not reasonably provide enablement for how to algebraically verify the inertia tensors are identical. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to ensure the invention commensurate in scope with this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 10- 17, and 19- 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston et al. (US 20160144404 A1).
Rew. Claims 1 and 22, Houston discloses in one of the embodiment of figure 82 an apparatus for generating pure torque vibrations (¶. [0462] and Fig. 82), comprising:
The apparatus 1200 shown in Fig. 82 uses an arbitrary number M of ERMs (in this case: M= 4, ¶. [0387]); however, according to another embodiment, it’s also preferable for M= 2 (“the vibration device 200 preferably includes two linear motion vibration actuators mounted on to it, namely actuator 202 and actuator 204,” ¶. [0188]). Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the same algorithm for 2 ERMs using a first motor and a second motor, each motor having a rotatable shaft and at least one mass attached thereto (see for instance, the apparatus shown in Fig. 46, which shows two actuators 1102a and 1102b which “share housings, shafts, power supplies, and other components to make the device even more compact” (¶. [0334]);
wherein each mass is statically balanced but dynamically imbalanced such that, when the shafts are rotated at a constant angular velocity, a torque vibration is produced substantially without generating a net translational force (“where a combined torque is generated and the forces cancel each other out. One such pure torque embodiment generates equal amplitudes torque in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions, and is referred to as a symmetric torque implementation” ¶. [0462]);
wherein the rotatable shafts of the first and second motors are arranged in a parallel configuration, and the first and second motors are rigidly (¶. [0189]) attached to a common subframe Fig. 46, which shows two actuators 1102a and 1102b which “share housings, shafts, power supplies, and other components to make the device even more compact” (¶. [0334]); and
whereby adjustment of a relative phase angle between rotation of the shafts is configured to modulate a combined pure torque vibration output from a maximum amplitude when the shafts are in-phase to approximately zero amplitude when the shafts are in antiphase (see table X and XI, ¶. [0462]- [0463]).
Re. claim 2, Houston discloses wherein the masses attached to each motor shaft have substantially identical inertia tensors (Fig. 66 shows the masses attached to each motor shaft has the same mass distribution ¶. [0656]) and mass quantities (¶. [0393])
Re. claim 3, Houston discloses wherein subframe, wherein the subframe comprises a rigid structural element having a material selected from the group consisting of a plastic brick, a metal, a metal alloy, and a composite material (Vibration actuators are used in a wide range of devices made from a material selected from the above group (background.)
Re. claim 4, Houston discloses wherein the at least one mass on a given one of the first or second motor shafts is formed by a pair of identical eccentric rotating masses arranged approximately 180 degrees out of phase relative to each other so that linear forces of the pair of identical eccentric rotating masses cancel out, resulting in the center of mass lying substantially on the axis of rotation of the given shaft, thereby enabling production of a statically balanced but dynamically imbalanced configuration that is configured to generate a torque vibration (see table X and XI, ¶. [0462]- [0463]).
Re. claim 5, Houston discloses wherein the at least one mass of each motor is eccentric rotating mass comprising a material having a selected density (¶. [0416]).
Re. claim 10, ¶. [0808].
Re. claims 11- 12 and 21, Houston discloses the apparatus can be used as a haptic interface or to provide haptic output for a device such “a vehicle, a steering mechanism for a vehicle (e.g., a handlebar grip of a bicycle, a handlebar grip of a motorcycle, and a steering wheel grip), a seat for a vehicle” ¶. [1218]. Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art design rigid structure for installing the apparatus to the vehicle in order to provide the feeling as haptic feedback resulted on driving the device in different operation modes in order to be used as information signals for the user.
Re. claim 13, see control unit 502.
Re. claim 14, see position sensor and/or a velocity sensor and open/ closed-loop control in Fig. 61, ¶. [0427].
Re. claim 15, ¶. [0436].
Re. claim 16, ¶. [0303].
Re. claim 17, see position sensor and/or a velocity sensor and open/ closed-loop control in Fig. 61, ¶. [0427].
Re. claim 19, ¶. [0255]-[0257] and [0454].
Re. claim 20, see background.
5. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston et al. (US 20160144404 A1) in view of Houston et al. (US 20220094253 A1, Houston253 hereinafter).
Re. claim 6, Houston discloses wherein eccentric rotating mass comprising a material having a selected density (¶. [0416]). However, is silence with regard with the used material. Kirsch253 discloses “Eccentric Rotating Masses are usually made of metal materials, for example: steel (an alloy of iron and carbon and sometimes other elements); brass (an alloy of copper and zinc); or a tungsten alloy—tungsten has an extremely high density—so that for a given eccentricity an ERM made from a tungsten alloy can be much smaller than an ERM made from steel or brass alloys.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select from these material in order to comply with the design requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 7- 9, 18 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846