DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 03/22/2024, said application claims a priority date of 03/24/2021.
Claims 25-44 are pending in the case.
Claims 1-24 have been cancelled.
Claims 25-44 have been added.
Claims 25, 32, 41 and 44 are independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 25-30, 32-37 and 39-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia et al. (US 2015/0070269 A1, published 03/12/2015, hereinafter “Bhatia”) in view of Fleureau et al. (US 2019/0156639 A1, published 05/23/2019, hereinafter “Fleureau”).
Independent Claims 25 and 32:
Bhatia discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to perform a method comprising (Bhatia: Fig. 1, ¶ [0024]):
obtaining information representative of a haptic effect (The system can receive a haptic signal (information representative of a haptic effect), Bhatia: abstract.);
determining, from the information representative of a haptic effect, at least one compression parameter based on one or more characteristics of the haptic signal (The system can select a compression algorithm (compression parameter) based on one or more characteristics of the haptic signal that correspond to any kind of quantifiable physical characteristic of the haptic signal, Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0070].)a location at which to apply the haptic effect and a type of haptic effect;
decompressing a haptic signal associated with the haptic effect based on the at least one compression parameter (The haptic signal is decompressed with a decompression algorithm that matches the compression algorithm, Bhatia: ¶ [0071]-[0075].); and
decoding the decompressed haptic signal (The decompressed haptic signal can also be decoded, Bhatia: ¶ [0071]-[0075].).
Bhatia does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus and method wherein the one or more characteristics of the haptic signal corresponds to a location at which to apply the haptic effect and a type of haptic effect.
However, Fleureau teaches an apparatus and method wherein the one or more characteristics of the haptic signal corresponds to a location at which to apply the haptic effect and a type of haptic effect (The haptic signal corresponds to a type of haptic effect (e.g. temperature, vibration, etc.) and a location at which to apply the haptic effect, Fleureau: abstract, ¶ [0013]-[0014], [0033], [0048]-[0056]. The type of haptic effect and the location where the haptic effect will be applied are a kind of quantifiable physical characteristic of the haptic signal, Fleureau: ¶ [0014], [0033], [0040], [0047], [0056]. The haptic signal is also compressed, Fleureau: ¶ [0034].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus and method of Bhatia wherein the one or more characteristics of the haptic signal corresponds to a location at which to apply the haptic effect and a type of haptic effect, as taught by Bhatia.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the type of haptic signal characteristics (such as the ones taught by Fleureau) that can be utilized for providing the compression efficiency and reconstruction fidelity of Bhatia (Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0060], [0070]-[0075].).
Claims 26 and 33:
The rejection of claims 25 and 32 are incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus and method wherein the location at which to apply the haptic effect is based on body segmentation, and wherein an identifier indicates a location of at least part of a body segmentation model (The location of the haptic effect is based on body segmentation, Fleureau: ¶ [0032], [0037], [0045], [0054]-[0055]. Identifiers are used to indicate the location (which corresponds to a segment of the body) of the haptic effect, Fleureau: ¶ [0014], [0033], [0050]-[0051], [0055]-[0056].).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the type of haptic signal characteristics (such as the ones taught by Fleureau) that can be utilized for providing the compression efficiency and reconstruction fidelity of Bhatia (Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0060], [0070]-[0075].) and to provide an effective means for generating the different types of haptic signal characteristics.
Claims 27 and 34:
The rejection of claims 25 and 32 are incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus and method wherein the location at which to apply the haptic effect is determined by a vertex or a set of vertices of a geometric model (Fleureau: ¶ [0013], [0032], [0041].).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the type of haptic signal characteristics (such as the ones taught by Fleureau) that can be utilized for providing the compression efficiency and reconstruction fidelity of Bhatia (Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0060], [0070]-[0075].) and to provide an effective means for generating the different types of haptic signal characteristics.
Claims 28 and 35:
The rejection of claims 25 and 32 are incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus and method wherein determining a location at which to apply the haptic effect comprises determining the location based on a texture associated with a geometric model (Fleureau: ¶ [0013], [0032], [0037], [0041], [0044].).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the type of haptic signal characteristics (such as the ones taught by Fleureau) that can be utilized for providing the compression efficiency and reconstruction fidelity of Bhatia (Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0060], [0070]-[0075].) and to provide an effective means for generating the different types of haptic signal characteristics.
Claims 29 and 36:
The rejection of claims 25 and 32 are incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus and method wherein the compression parameter provides a limitation for a maximal frequency of the haptic signal (Bhatia: ¶ [0060]-[0061], [0064].).
Claims 30 and 37:
The rejection of claims 25 and 32 are incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus and method wherein the compression parameter provides a limitation for an amplitude of the haptic signal (Bhatia: ¶ [0037], [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0070].).
Claim 39:
The rejection of claim 32 is incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus further comprising at least one haptic actuator and being further configured to render the haptic effect by applying the haptic signal to a haptic actuator selected based on the location where to apply the haptic effect (The haptic effects are rendered by haptic actuators, Bhatia: ¶ [0029], [0038]. Haptic effects are mapped to particular locations/body parts and haptic actuators are used to render those effects, Fleureau: abstract, ¶ [0005], [0006], [0019], [0037], [0044], [0055]-[0056].)
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more immersive haptic effect (Fleureau: ¶ [0002].).
Claim 40:
The rejection of claim 39 is incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus wherein the apparatus is selected in a set comprising haptic suits, smartphones, game controllers, haptic gloves, haptic chairs, haptic props and motion platforms (Bhatia: ¶ [0024]).
Independent Claims 41 and 44:
Bhatia discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to perform a method comprising (Bhatia: Fig. 1, ¶ [0024]):
obtaining a haptic signal associated with a haptic effect (Bhatia: abstract.);
determining at least one compression parameter based on one or more characteristics of the haptic signal (The system can select a compression algorithm (compression parameter) based on one or more characteristics of the haptic signal that correspond to any kind of quantifiable physical characteristic of the haptic signal, Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0070].)a location at which to apply the haptic effect and a type of haptic effect;
compressing the haptic signal based on the at least one compression parameter (Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0070].); and
decoding the decompressed haptic signal (The decompressed haptic signal can also be decoded, Bhatia: ¶ [0061][0070],[0075].).
Bhatia does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus and method wherein:
the one or more characteristics of the haptic signal corresponds to an obtained location at which to apply the haptic effect and an obtained type of haptic effect;
information representative of the haptic effect is generated and encoded.
However, Fleureau teaches an apparatus and method wherein:
the one or more characteristics of the haptic signal corresponds to an obtained location at which to apply the haptic effect and an obtained type of haptic effect (The haptic signal corresponds to a type of haptic effect (e.g. temperature, vibration, etc.) and a location at which to apply the haptic effect, Fleureau: abstract, ¶ [0013]-[0014], [0033], [0048]-[0056]. The location and type of haptic effect are obtained, Fleureau: abstract, ¶ [0013], [0031]-[0034], [0040]-[0044], [0049]-[0051], The type of haptic effect and the location where the haptic effect will be applied are a kind of quantifiable physical characteristic of the haptic signal, Fleureau: ¶ [0014], [0033], [0040], [0047], [0056]. The haptic signal is also compressed, Fleureau: ¶ [0034].);
information representative of the haptic effect is generated and encoded (Fleureau: ¶ [0033]-[0034], [0049]-[0051].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus and method of Bhatia wherein:
the one or more characteristics of the haptic signal corresponds to an obtained location at which to apply the haptic effect and an obtained type of haptic effect;
information representative of the haptic effect is generated and encoded, as taught by Fleureau.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the type of haptic signal characteristics (such as the ones taught by Fleureau) that can be utilized for providing the compression efficiency and reconstruction fidelity of Bhatia (Bhatia: ¶ [0023], [0059], [0060], [0070]-[0075].).
Claim 42:
The rejection of claim 41 is incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus wherein the compression parameter provides a limitation for a maximal frequency of the haptic signal (Bhatia: ¶ [0060]-[0061], [0064].).
Claim 43:
The rejection of claim 41 is incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau further teaches an apparatus wherein the compression parameter provides a limitation for an amplitude of the haptic signal (Bhatia: ¶ [0037], [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0070].).
Claim(s) 31 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia in view of Fleureau and further in view of A. Tirmizi et al. (“A perceptually-motivated deadband compression approach for cutaneous haptic feedback,” published 2016, hereinafter “Tirmizi”).
Claims 31 and 38:
The rejections of claims 30 and 37 are incorporated. Bhatia in view of Fleureau does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the limitation is based on Weber's law of just noticeable differences, wherein the information representative of the haptic effect comprises a compression parameter based on a fraction, and wherein the fraction represents a minimal level of signal change for a perceptual deadband compression of kinesthetic or vibrotactile signals.
However, Tirmizi teaches an apparatus and method wherein the limitation is based on Weber's law of just noticeable differences, wherein the information representative of the haptic effect comprises a compression parameter based on a fraction, and wherein the fraction represents a minimal level of signal change for a perceptual deadband compression of kinesthetic or vibrotactile signals (Tirmizi: pages 223 (in particular column 2 first paragraph indicates cutaneous feedback includes vibrotactile feedback) and pages 225 to page 227).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus and method of Bhatia in view of Fleureau wherein the limitation is based on Weber's law of just noticeable differences, wherein the information representative of the haptic effect comprises a compression parameter based on a fraction, and wherein the fraction represents a minimal level of signal change for a perceptual deadband compression of kinesthetic or vibrotactile signals, as taught by Tirmizi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve compression efficiency while preserving perceived haptic quality (Tirmizi: abstract).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Sherry et al., US 2020/0209967 A1 (The haptic signal is compressed, ¶ [0043])
Yamano et al., US 2022/0244784 A1 (The haptic signal is compressed, ¶ [0077])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178