Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/673,655

AUDITORY TACTILE SENSE PRESENTATION DEVICE AND AUDITORY TACTILE SENSE PRESENTATION METHOD

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 24, 2024
Examiner
WILSON, BRIAN P
Art Unit
2689
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
TDK Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
495 granted / 792 resolved
+0.5% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+42.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 792 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Summary This Office Action is in response to reply dated December 29, 2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending. 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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yliaho (US 2016/0004311 A1). Regarding claim 1, Yliaho discloses an auditory tactile sense presentation device (see at least Figures 1-3 | [0001]) comprising: a receptor configured to receive an input of a drive signal (see at least Figure 3 | [0091] note the audio source/audio driver 201, of the control unit shown in Figure 3, receives a master signal that corresponds to a drive signal from a transceiver (not labeled)); and an output unit configured to perform an output based on the drive signal (see at least Figure 2 | [0089] note the display 12 generates tactile effects across the display area and operates as an air displacement piston generating acoustic waves of defined amplitude, frequency and direction), wherein the output unit is configured by a vibrator including a diaphragm (see at least Figure 2, item 12 | [0089] note the display 12 operates as an air displacement piston generating acoustic waves of defined amplitude, frequency and direction) and a piezoelectric element (see at least Figures 2, 3 and 5, items 103 and 209 | [0089] note the piezoelectric actuator 103 | [0101-0102] note the piezoelectric actuator 209 receives the audio/acoustic (high frequency) stream signal and a tactile/haptic (low frequency) stream signal | [0133]) disposed on one surface of the diaphragm (see at least Figure 2, items 12 and 103 | [0089]), and the vibrator outputs, in the drive signal, a signal component having a frequency higher than a predetermined frequency as audio (see at least [0094] note the master signal or drive signal is separated into an audio/acoustic stream signal and a tactile/haptic stream signal via high and low pass filters | [0101-0102] | [0133]) and outputs a signal component having a frequency equal to or lower than the predetermined frequency as vibration (see at least [0094] note the tactile/haptic stream signal has a frequency lower than the frequency used for the high pass filter). Regarding claim 3, Yliaho discloses wherein the drive signal is a digital signal (see at least [0101] note the DAC performs digital-to-analogue conversion). Regarding claim 7, Yliaho discloses an amplifier configured to amplify the drive signal and output the amplified drive signal to the output unit (see at least [0101] note the DAC/Amplifier amplifies the drive signal). Regarding claim 10, Yliaho discloses an auditory tactile sense presentation method (see at least Figures 1-3 | [0001]) comprising: receiving an input of a drive signal in a receptor (see at least Figure 3 | [0091] note the audio source/audio driver 201, of the control unit shown in Figure 3, receives a master signal that corresponds to a drive signal from a transceiver (not labeled)); and outputting based on the drive signal in an output unit configured by a vibrator including a diaphragm and a piezoelectric element disposed on one surface of the diaphragm (see at least Figures 2, 3 and 5, items 12, 103, 209 | [0089] note the display 12 generates tactile effects across the display area and operates as an air displacement piston generating acoustic waves of defined amplitude, frequency and direction | [0101-0102] note the piezoelectric actuator 209, receives the audio/acoustic (high frequency) stream signal and a tactile/haptic (low frequency) stream signal | [0133]), wherein in the outputting, in the drive signal, a signal component having a frequency higher than a predetermined frequency is output as audio (see at least [0094] note the master signal or drive signal is separated into an audio/acoustic stream signal and a tactile/haptic stream signal via high and low pass filters | [0101-0102] | [0133]), and a signal component having a frequency equal to or lower than the predetermined frequency is output as vibration (see at least [0094] note the tactile/haptic stream signal has a frequency lower than the frequency used for the high pass filter). 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yliaho (US 2016/0004311 A1) in view of Jeong (US 2025/0021162 A1). Regarding claim 2, Yliaho does not specifically disclose wherein the predetermined frequency is 200 Hz. It is known to separate audio and haptic signals in different ways. For example, Jeong teaches a system wherein the predetermined frequency is 200 Hz (see at least Figure 2 | [0002] | [0153] | [0155] | [0160] | [0173] | [0177] note 200 Hz separates the bands). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Jeong into Yliaho. This provides a frequency that can separate Yliaho’s audio/acoustic stream signal and a tactile/haptic stream signal. In addition, discovering an optimum value involves routine skill in the art. Claims 4, 5, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yliaho (US 2016/0004311 A1) in view of Bhatia (US 2012/0206247 A1). Regarding claim 4, Yliaho discloses wherein the drive signal is a signal obtained by superimposing an audio signal and a vibration signal (see at least [0091-0094]). However, Yliaho does not specifically disclose set for a period during which an amplitude of the audio signal exceeds a predetermined threshold. It is known to generate a vibration signal in different ways. For example, Bhatia teaches a system wherein a vibration signal set for a period during which an amplitude of the audio signal exceeds a predetermined threshold (see at least [0028-0031] | [0039-0040] | [0050]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Bhatia into Yliaho. This provides the steps to generate at least the tactile/haptic stream signal of Yliaho’s mixed signal at the audio source/audio driver 201 in the event it is not received/receivable or retrievable (see [0091] of Yliaho). Regarding claim 5, Yliaho in view of Bhatia, as addressed above, teach wherein the vibration signal is a sine wave (see at least [0029] of Bhatia | [0039] of Bhatia). Regarding claim 6, Yliaho in view of Bhatia, as addressed above, teach wherein the vibration signal has a plurality of frequency components (see at least [0039] of Bhatia | [0050] of Bhatia). Regarding claim 11, Yliaho discloses an auditory tactile sense presentation device (see at least Figures 1-3 | [0001]) comprising: a receptor configured to receive an input of a drive signal (see at least Figure 3 | [0091] note the audio source/audio driver 201, of the control unit shown in Figure 3, receives a master signal that corresponds to a drive signal from a transceiver (not labeled)); and an output unit configured to perform an output based on the drive signal (see at least Figure 2 | [0089] note the display 12 generates tactile effects across the display area and operates as an air displacement piston generating acoustic waves of defined amplitude, frequency and direction), wherein the output unit is configured by a vibrator including a piezoelectric element (see at least Figures 2, 3 and 5, items 12 and 103 | [0089] note the display 12 operates as an air displacement piston generating acoustic waves of defined amplitude, frequency and direction via a piezoelectric actuator 103 | [0101-0102] note the piezoelectric actuator 209 receives the audio/acoustic (high frequency) stream signal and a tactile/haptic (low frequency) stream signal | [0133]), the vibrator outputs, in the drive signal, a signal component having a frequency higher than a predetermined frequency as audio (see at least [0094] note the master signal or drive signal is separated into an audio/acoustic stream signal and a tactile/haptic stream signal via high and low pass filters | [0101-0102] | [0133]) and outputs a signal component having a frequency equal to or lower than the predetermined frequency as vibration (see at least [0094] note the tactile/haptic stream signal has a frequency lower than the frequency used for the high pass filter), and wherein the drive signal is a signal obtained by superimposing an audio signal and a vibration signal (see at least [0091-0094]). However, Yliaho does not specifically disclose set for a period during which an amplitude of the audio signal exceeds a predetermined threshold. It is known to generate a vibration signal in different ways. For example, Bhatia teaches a system wherein a vibration signal set for a period during which an amplitude of the audio signal exceeds a predetermined threshold (see at least [0028-0031] | [0039-0040] | [0050]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Bhatia into Yliaho. This provides the steps to generate at least the tactile/haptic stream signal of Yliaho’s mixed signal at the audio source/audio driver 201 in the event it is not received/receivable or retrievable (see [0091] of Yliaho). Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yliaho (US 2016/0004311 A1) in view of Lacroix (US 2014/0300454 A1). Regarding claim 8, Yliaho does not specifically disclose a signal generator configured by a vibrator including a piezoelectric element and configured to generate, as the drive signal, a signal based on a voltage generated according to a pressing force applied to the piezoelectric element. It is known to receive an audio signal in different ways. For example, Lacroix teaches a presentation system with a signal generator configured by a vibrator including a piezoelectric element and configured to generate, as the drive signal, a signal based on a voltage generated according to a pressing force applied to the piezoelectric element (see at least [0027] note the sensor detects a form of energy, or other physical property, such as, but not limited to, sound, movement, acceleration, bio signals, distance, flow, force/pressure/strain/bend, etc. | [0029] note the input signal can be a multimedia signal comprising an audio signal, a video signal and/or sensor signals captured with a sensor | [0031] note in alternate embodiments, a user can select another type of signal contained within the multimedia signal, such as the sensor signal | [0032] note the system converts the selected signals, such as the sensor signal, into one or more haptic signals including a waveform in a pulse-coded modulation ("PCM") format, that is a digital format, to be sent to a haptic output device, such as a piezoelectric element with a receptor | [0023] note the network allows transmission for the haptic signal | [0048-0050] | [0052]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Lacroix into Yliaho. This provides the ability to capture vibrations associated with audio, thus providing a more immersive listening experience. Regarding claim 9, Yliaho in view of Lacroix, as addressed above, teach a converter configured to convert the signal from the signal generator into a digital signal and transmit the digital signal to the receptor via a network; and a restorer configured to restore the digital signal received by the receptor via the network to a signal before conversion (see at least [0027] of Lacroix, note the sensor detects a form of energy, or other physical property, such as, but not limited to, sound, movement, acceleration, bio signals, distance, flow, force/pressure/strain/bend, etc. | [0029] of Lacroix, note the input signal can be a multimedia signal comprising an audio signal, a video signal and/or sensor signals captured with a sensor | [0031] of Lacroix, note in alternate embodiments, a user can select another type of signal contained within the multimedia signal, such as the sensor signal | [0032] of Lacroix, note the system converts the selected signals, such as the sensor signal, into one or more haptic signals including a waveform in a pulse-coded modulation ("PCM") format, that is a digital format, to be sent to a haptic output device, such as a piezoelectric element with a receptor | [0023] of Lacroix, note the network allows transmission for the haptic signal | [0048-0050] of Lacroix | [0052] of Lacroix). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Yliaho only discloses a piezoelectric element but does not disclose a diaphragm on which the piezoelectric element is disposed. Thus, amended claims 1 and 10 are patentable over the applied references.” In response, Figure 2 of Yliaho shows a piezoelectric element 103 disposed on one surface of the diaphragm 12. Paragraph [0089] of Yliaho describes that the motion of the piezoelectric element 103 can then be passed to the display 12 which can then be felt by the user. This allows the display to operate as an air displacement piston that generates acoustic waves of defined amplitude, frequency and direction. For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues “In Bhatia, waveform reproduction is performed by distinguishing between the audio signal and vibration signal, based on the threshold. Bhatia does not disclose generating the vibration signal based on a threshold of the amplitude of an audio signal that has been input, then superimposing the generated vibration signal and the original audio signal. Thus, contrary to the Office Action assertions, Bhatia does not disclose the subject matter recited in claim 4, now incorporated into claim 11. As such, claim 11 is also patentable.” In response, Yliaho already discloses that the drive signal is a signal obtained by superimposing an audio signal and a vibration signal (see [0091]). Bhatia is used to illustrate that haptic effects can simply be output when an audio signal exceeds a predetermined threshold, otherwise a haptic effect is not deemed necessary. This allows Yliaho’s drive signal would simply mix a vibration signal with an audio signal when the audio signal exceeds a predetermined threshold (e.g., to provide a level of synchronization). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In addition, in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Bhatia does not disclose generating the vibration signal based on a threshold of the amplitude of an audio signal that has been input, then superimposing the generated vibration signal and the original audio signal”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. 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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm. 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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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. /BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584404
DIRECTIONAL DRILLING COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS, APPARATUS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576868
INCLEMENT WEATHER DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567317
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS DUE TO TRIPPING OR BUMPING ON COMMON EQUIPMENT AND OPEN DOORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562046
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING LOSS OF FISHING GEAR AND ESTIMATING LOCATION OF LOST FISHING GEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12542043
Dynamic Context Aware Response System for Enterprise Protection
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.2%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 792 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month