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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments field on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 1, 7 and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 102 rejection applicant argued for independent claims 1 and 15 at page 8 that “Marchais vaguely teaches that "an input force sensor, in which a change in gripping force applied to host device 300 is detected as a change in one or more operating parameters (e.g., impedance, resonance frequency f0, sensed current 1(t), terminal voltage VT(t), estimated back-EMF voltage VB(t), complex impedance, quality factor, and/or another parameter) of electromagnetic load 301. The magnitude of change of the one or more operating parameters may provide an indication of a magnitude of force (or change of force) applied to host device 300." More specifically, in providing examples of changing parameters, Marchais mentions that "a force applied by the user upon electromagnetic load 301 (e.g., either directly or indirectly by force applied to an enclosure of host device 300) may lead to a shift in one or more parameters (e.g., resonance frequency fo, impedance) of electromagnetic load 301." Marchais further teaches that "a machine learning classifier such as a Support Vector Machine (SVM), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and/or classifier may be used to extract features of one or more operation parameter changes corresponding to force events and from such changes determine what type of force event has occurred." In other words, one skilled in the art would understand that the force detection of Marchais is a complex operation in which several parameters are analyzed using machine learning. Such systems do not lend themselves to making determinations based on predetermined relationships, such as a relationship between a current level associated with a voltage drop and a corresponding load”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Marchais teaches force/load is applied to vibrotactile actuator 301 and current I(t) is measured flowing through shunt resistance Rs and applied force/load is measured by using predetermined relationship between current I(t) flowing through load Rs (See [0025]-[0029]).
Therefore Marchais teaches detect a load applied to the vibrotactile actuator based on a predetermined relationship between a current level associated with the voltage drop and a corresponding load.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Therefore applicant’s arguments regarding 102 rejection are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 inventio
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by MARCHAIS et al. (Pub NO. US 2020/0309611 A1; hereinafter Marchais).
Regarding Claim 1, Marchais teaches a vibrotactile device (vibrotactile device 305 in Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [0034]) comprising:
a first actuator channel (See the channel of 301 in Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [0035]) including a vibrotactile actuator (301 is vibrotactile actuator in Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [0034]) and a resistor having a predetermined resistance (302 with predetermined resistance Rs in Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [0025]) positioned at an input of the vibrotactile actuator (See Fig. 3 and Fig. below),
wherein a current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator varies according to a load applied to the vibrotactile actuator (See [0029]-[0030]); and
wherein the current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator passes through the resistor (current I(t) passes through resistor Rs in fig. 3; See [0032]);
a processor configured to output a driving signal for driving the vibrotactile actuator (driving signal x(t) is outputted from processor 314 in fig. 3; See [0025]);
a loading sensor (loading sensor to sense current I(t) Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [See [0025]-[0026]) configured to measure a voltage drop across the resistor (sensed current I(t) multiplied by Rs is voltage across resistor 304 is inherent property in Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [0025]), wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive voltage drop measurement data from the loading sensor (voltage drop is measures from current I(t) and known resistance Rs; See [0028]);
detect a load applied to the vibrotactile actuator based on a predetermined relationship between a current level associated with the voltage drop and a corresponding load (load/force is measured based on predetermined relationship between current I(t) flowing through corresponding load Rs; Se [0029]-[0034]); and control the driving signal based on the detected load (current I(t)and known resistance Rs, therefore based on current is also based on voltage drop; See [0025]-[0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
886
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Marchais teaches the vibrotactile device of claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to store: a type of the vibrotactile actuator included in the first actuator channel (processor 314 has memory in Fig. 3; See [0034]); and
one or more current-load correspondence mappings (See [0034]),
each mapping indicating a relationship between a plurality of current levels and corresponding loads for a given type of vibrotactile actuator (See [0030]-[0032]),
wherein the processor is configured to detect the load applied to the vibrotactile actuator based on a current-load correspondence mapping associated with the type of the vibrotactile actuator (See [0030]-[0034]).
Regarding Claim 6, Marchais teaches a portable device comprising:
a housing (housing 300 in Fig. 3; See [0031]); and the vibrotactile device of claim 1,
wherein the vibrotactile device is disposed inside the housing (device 305 is disposed within housing 300 in Fig. 3; See [0031]).
Regarding Claim 15, Marchais teaches a method (vibrotactile device 305 in Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [0034]) comprising:
outputting, by a processor, a driving signal for driving a vibrotactile actuator (See [0025]);
receiving, by the processor, a voltage measurement indicating a voltage drop over a resistor positioned at an input of the vibrotactile actuator and having a predetermined resistance (sensed current I(t) multiplied by Rs is voltage across resistor 304 is inherent property in Fig. 3 and Fig. below; See [0025]);
calculating, by the processor, an amount of current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator based a predetermined relationship between a current level associated with the voltage drop and a corresponding load ((load/force is measured based on predetermined relationship between current I(t) flowing through corresponding load Rs; Se [0025]-[0034])); and
controlling, by the processor, the driving signal based on the calculated amount of current (See [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
886
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Marchais teaches the method of claim 16, wherein calculating the amount of current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator further comprises: determining a peak current level using an asymmetric smoothing filter (determine I(t) using filter 308 in Fig. 3; See [0027]); and calculating the amount of current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator to equal the determined peak current (current I(t) represents peak current in Fig. 3; See [0032]).
Regarding Claim 19, Marchais teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: accessing, by the processor, current-load correspondence data indicating a plurality of amounts of current (See equation (2) and (3) is current-load correspondence; See [0026]-[0028]), each amount of current associated with a corresponding applied load determining, by the processor (See [0032]), a magnitude of a load applied to the vibrotactile actuator based on the calculated amount of current and the current-load correspondence data (See [0030]-[0034]).
Regarding Claim 20, Marchais teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising: determining, by the processor, whether the calculated amount of current is greater than or equal to a threshold amount of current (See [0032]); and outputting, by the processor, one or more haptic feedback signals to the vibrotactile actuator in response to the calculated amount of current being greater than or equal to the threshold amount of current (See [0032]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchais in view of KIMURA et al. (Pub NO. US 2022/0269035 A1; hereinafter Kimura).
Regarding Claim 2, Marchais teaches the vibrotactile device of claim 1, wherein the first actuator channel further includes a low pass filter configured to filter the driving signal (filter 308 in Fig. 3; See [0027]) and a current amplifier (306 in fig. 3; See [0025]).
Marchais teaches driving signal (driving signal V(t) in Fi. 3),
However, Marchais is silent about the driving signal is a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal.
Kimura teaches the driving signal is a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal (PWM signal drives actuator; See [0120]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Marchais by using PWM signal to drive actuator, as taught by Kimura in order to reduce noise (Kimura; [0120]).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchais in view of Kimura further in view of Viswanathan et al. (Pub NO. US 2016/0109327 A1; hereinafter Viswanathan).
Regarding Claim 3, Marchais in view of Kimura teaches the vibrotactile device of claim 2. Marchais in view of Kimura is silent about wherein the loading sensor includes a current amplifier configured to amplify the voltage drop measurement and a low-pass anti-aliasing filter to filter the amplified voltage drop measurement, and wherein the processor includes an analog- to-digital converter (ADC) configured to receive the filtered voltage drop measurement.
Viswanathan teaches wherein the loading sensor (144 in Fig. 1; See [0017]) includes a current amplifier configured to amplify the voltage drop measurement and a low-pass anti-aliasing filter to filter the amplified voltage drop measurement, and wherein the processor includes an analog- to-digital converter (ADC) configured to receive the filtered voltage drop measurement (See [0017]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Marchais and Kimura by using the loading sensor includes a current amplifier configured to amplify the voltage drop measurement and a low-pass anti-aliasing filter to filter the amplified voltage drop measurement, and wherein the processor includes an analog- to-digital converter (ADC) configured to receive the filtered voltage drop measurement, as taught by Viswanathan in order to achieve optimum reflection (Viswanathan; [0017]).
Regarding Claim 4, Marchais in view of Kimura further in view of Viswanathan teaches the vibrotactile device of claim 3. Marchais further teaches wherein the processor is configured to detect a peak in the voltage drop measurement data (peak current I(t) represents peak voltage drop in Fig. 3; See [0032]) and determine an amount of loading applied to the vibrotactile actuator based on a height of the peak (it is inherent property to measure voltage drop from current I(t)and known resistance Rs, therefore based on current is also based on voltage drop; See [0029]-[0034]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchais in view of Kimura further in view of Maharajan et al. (Pub NO. US 2016/0293829 A1; hereinafter Maharajan).
Regarding Claim 16, Marchais teaches the method of claim 15. Marchais is silent about further comprising: controlling, by the processor, a connection to each of a plurality of vibrotactile channels, wherein only one vibrotactile channel is connected to the processor at a time.
Maharajan teaches further comprising: controlling, by the processor, a connection to each of a plurality of vibrotactile channels (See plurality of channels are connected to processor 128 by 142A in Fig. 3A; See [0040]-[0044]), wherein only one vibrotactile channel is connected to the processor at a time (142A selects one channels at 130A at a time in Fig. 3A; See [0040]-[0044]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Marchais by controlling, by the processor, a connection to each of a plurality of vibrotactile channels, wherein only one vibrotactile channel is connected to the processor at a time, as taught by Maharajan in order to achieve fully contemplate receiving and providing voltage or current inputs and outputs (Maharajan; [0043]).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchais in view of Stubbs et al. (Pub NO. US 2014/0332705 A1; hereinafter Stubbs).
Regarding Claim 18, Marchais the method of claim 16, wherein calculating the amount of current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator (See [0032]).
Marchais is silent about further comprises: determining a mean square current level; and calculating the amount of current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator to equal the mean square current level.
Stubbs teaches determining a mean square current level; and calculating the amount of current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator to equal the mean square current level (See [0066]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Marchais by determining a mean square current level; and calculating the amount of current drawn by the vibrotactile actuator to equal the mean square current level, as taught by Stubbs in order to achieve optimum control (Stubbs; abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 are allowed. Examiner’s reasons for allowance are following:
Any reference does not disclose nor fairly suggest each and every claimed limitation of independent claim 7:
As to claims 7-14 the present invention is direct to a vibrotactile actuator, comprising: Independent claim 7 identifies the uniquely distinct features of “each actuator channel including a respective vibrotactile actuator and a respective resistor positioned at the input of the corresponding vibrotactile actuator, wherein each respective resistor has a predetermined resistance, wherein a current drawn by its respective vibrotactile actuator varies according to a load applied to the respective vibrotactile actuator, and wherein the current drawn by the respective vibrotactile actuator passes through the respective resistor; and a multiplexer including a plurality of inputs connected to the plurality of actuator channels and an output connected to the loading sensor; wherein the processor is configured to output a driving signal for driving the vibrotactile actuator”.
The closest prior art, MARCHAIS et al. (Pub NO. US 2020/0309611 A1), Maharajan et al. (Pub NO. US 2016/0293829 A1) teaches Method and system for a vibrotactile actuator, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious, in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 7.
As to claims 8-14 the claims are allowed for depending on claim 7.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights