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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application amendment filed on 06/17/2026.
Claim 11 is canceled.
CONTINUING DATA: This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/048754 12/28/2021
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 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kubota et al. (US 2004/0174337 A1) in view of Israr (US 10,942,572 B1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Kubota disclose an operation system comprising: an operation device … the operation device comprising:
a mounting section comprising a hand portion and a finger portion of a user (fig.3; [0070], [0071]; a force feedback glove is disclosed);
a first position detection section that is disposed on the mounting section and configured to detect positions of the finger portion ([0070]-[0071]; finger positions are detected by the glove); and
a stimulus generation section that is disposed on the finger portion of the mounting section and configured to control application of an external stimulus ([0070]-[0071]; haptic actuators are implemented throughout the glove).
Kubota does not expressly disclose the operation device communicatively coupled to an operation target device comprising at least one sensor, the operation device comprising: a control section configured to transmit, to the operation target device and based on a first result detected by the first position detection section, operation information for operating the operation target device; and …based on a second result detected by the at least one sensor of the operation target device, wherein the second result comprises a stimulus acting on the operation target device.
In the same field of endeavor, Israr discloses the operation device communicatively coupled to an operation target device comprising at least one sensor, the operation device comprising: a control section configured to transmit, to the operation target device and based on a first result detected by the first position detection section, operation information for operating the operation target device; and …based on a second result detected by the at least one sensor of the operation target device, wherein the second result comprises a stimulus acting on the operation target device (col.1, l.18-42; col. 14, l. 35-44; the haptic glove sends control signals to control a remote device, the remote device sends signals to the haptic glove to provide realistic feedbacks to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Kubota and Israr before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the force feedback gloves taught by Kubota to include the above limitation taught by Israr with the motivation being to provide a more realistic haptic experience on a remote site.
As to claim 2, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the first position detection section is disposed on the mounting section and positioned on a nail side of the finger portion (Kubota, fig.6; [0128]-[0129]; position sensors are mounted on top of the fingers).
As to claim 3, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the stimulus generation section includes a vibration generation section that is disposed on the mounting section, positioned between a first joint and a second joint of the finger portion, and configured to generate a vibration (Israr, fig.5; col.11, l.15-20; col.14, l.52-64; vibrations are produced from haptic jamming members located on the finger joints).
As to claim 8, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the mounting section is shaped like a glove that is worn on the user's hand and fingers (Kubota, fig.3; a glove is illustrated).
As to claim 9, the prior art as combined disclose wherein the first position detection section includes a magnetic sensor that detects an externally generated magnetic field (Kubota, [0143]-[0147]; externally generated magnetic field is captured by the posture detecting section “23”).
As to claim 10, the prior art as combined disclose wherein the control section is disposed on the mounting section, placed at a position corresponding to a wrist portion of a user, and configured to control the stimulus generation section (Kubota, fig.3; [0070]; the controller “24” is placed just below the wrist).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota-Israr in view of Elias et al. (US 2019/0101981 A1).
As to claim 4, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose a proximity detection section that is disposed on the mounting section, positioned on a ball side of the user's fingertips, and configured to detect proximity of an object.
In the same field of endeavor, Elias discloses a proximity detection section that is disposed on the mounting section, positioned on a ball side of the user's fingertips, and configured to detect proximity of an object ([0020], [0042]; touching an object with finger tips is sensed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Elias before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the force feedback gloves taught by the prior art as combined to include the above limitation taught by Elias with the motivation being to provide a more realistic haptic virtual experience.
As to claim 5, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein the stimulus generation section includes a temperature adjustment section that is able to adjust a temperature.
In the same field of endeavor, Elias discloses wherein the stimulus generation section includes a temperature adjustment section that is able to adjust a temperature ([0028]; heating elements are activated to provide temperature adjustments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Elias before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the force feedback gloves taught by the prior art as combined to include the above limitation taught by Elias with the motivation being to provide a more realistic haptic virtual experience.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota-Israr in view of Nishigori et al. (WO2018029595).
As to claim 6, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein the stimulus generation section includes a pressing section that presses the hand and fingers.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishigori discloses wherein the stimulus generation section includes a pressing section that presses the hand portion and the finger portion (fig. 1, fig.3; [0032]; vibration actuators are flexible such that they can be wrapped on user’s hand and fingers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Nishigori before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the force feedback gloves taught by Kubota to include the above limitation taught by Nishigori with the motivation being to provide a more realistic haptic virtual experience.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota-Israr in view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0263154 A1).
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose a second position detection section that is disposed on the mounting section, placed at a position corresponding to a back of the hand,portion and configured to detect a position of the back of the hand portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang disclose a second position detection section that is disposed on the mounting section, placed at a position corresponding to a back of the hand portion, and configured to detect a position of the back of the hand portion (fig.2; [0025]; sensors are placed at on the back of user’s hand).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Wang before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the force feedback gloves taught by of the prior art as combined to include the above limitation taught by Wang with the motivation being to improve accuracy of the user’s hand movements.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota-Israr in view of Cipriani et al. (US 2017/0119553 A1).
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose a second position detection section that is disposed on the mounting section, placed at a position corresponding to a back of the user's hand, and configured to detect a position of the back of the hand.
In the same field of endeavor, Cipriani disclose a second position detection section that is disposed on the mounting section, placed at a position corresponding to a back of the user's hand, and configured to detect a position of the back of the hand ([0118]; sensors are placed at on the back of user’s hand).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Cipriani before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the force feedback gloves taught by the prior art as combined to include the above limitation taught by Cipriani with the motivation being to improve accuracy of the user’s hand movements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights