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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 03/27/2026 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.
Applicants’ amendments have been reviewed and the objections of the previous office action have been withdrawn accordingly.
It should be noted that there exists prior art which is pertinent to significant though unclaimed features of the defined invention or directed to the state of art. The following is a brief description of relevant prior art cited but not applied:
Frid US-20100188327-A1 discloses [0020] In other implementations, user interfaces of electronic devices may include any combination of these and other user input mechanisms. Other user inputs that may be present include, for example, scroll wheels, thumb wheels, thumb sticks, sensors that detect and register movement of a user's thumb or finger, tactile sensors, touch screens, or any other conventional user input mechanism.
Reynolds US-20080246735-A1 discloses [0024] Finger receiving recess 112 is shown in FIG. 1 (and elsewhere herein) as being operated by a finger 100. For purposes of brevity and clarity, embodiments are shown and described as being operated by finger 100; however it is appreciated that embodiments of finger receiving recess 112, as discussed herein, are also well suited for being operated by a variety of appendages, such as fingers, thumbs, palms, feet, toes, and the like. Other ridges and tactile elements for allowing a user to align to the sensors may also be included outside of the capacitive sensing device.
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 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(s) 1, 10-11, 13, 27-28, 33, 35, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1) in view of Campbell (US-8825389-B1).
1. (Currently Amended) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses
A sensory substitution device comprising:
[FIG.9]
an elongate body;
[FIG.9] Frames of the intelligent walking stick 64 may be available in different sizes or adjustable in size.
spatial sensor configured to provide spatial sensor data indicative of a spatial representation of an environment in which the sensory substitution device is located;
[col.15 ln.20] each sensor node or mote 118 may include at least a microcontroller 124, transceiver 134, memory 120, power source 130 and one or more sensors 136, where the sensor or sensors 136 are either internal or external to the intelligent walking stick 64…
[col.16 ln.55] housing motes 118 may have anyone of a number of sensors such as for water, ice, snow, fire, smoke, light, wind, movement, movement by the earth such as when a car is approaching, movement by a person walking, the light of approaching headlights of a car, a red light, a green light, a yellow light, an orange light. These housing motes 118 may then communicate the information on such conditions to a radio transmitter or other router that may be part of or separate from the guided movement platform 10. The routers then communication such information to a monitoring station of the guided movement platform 10, … which may be engaged on the intelligent walking stick 64
and
Campbell US-8825389-B1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for “…at least one tactile marker for at least one digit of at least one hand of a user, wherein the at least one tactile marker comprises a thumb recess”;
(Campbell [col.3 ln.25] The mobility device 10 further includes a feedback mechanism 44 for informing the visually impaired person 12 of the object detected by the laser detection apparatus 30. In one embodiment, the feedback mechanism 44 includes a plurality of vibrating tactile transmitters 44 arrayed on the outer surface 22 of the handle for indicating to the visually impaired person 12 the distance to the obstacle from the laser detection apparatus 30. In this embodiment, the vibrating tactile transmitters 44 are arranged linearly under the user's thumb and down to the palm. In this arrangement, in one embodiment, vibrations in the vibrating tactile transmitters 44 near the end of the thumb would indicate something a significant distance from the visually impaired person 12 (i.e., at the end of a "virtual cane"), while closer objects would cause vibrations in the vibrating tactile transmitters 44 further up the user's thumb and palm.)
Examiner’s Note: Regarding a “recess”, Campbell discloses a consideration for “under the user's thumb”. It should be noted that the limitation is being interpreted as a “recess” for housing/orienting mechanics such as a tactile marker as taught by Campbell. For more information, please see the Response to Arguments section above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include at least one tactile marker for at least one digit of at least one hand of a user, wherein the at least one tactile marker comprises a thumb recess with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Campbell, for the benefit of providing a feedback mechanism for informing a visually impaired person [col.3].
a shape-change mechanism operable to cause the sensory substitution device to change shape [col.20 ln.60], based on the spatial sensor data [col.21], to provide kinaesthetic output to a user of the sensory substitution device, wherein the kinaesthetic output directs the user to point the elongate body at a target position in the environment [col.20-21].
[col.20 ln.60] intelligent walking stick 64 is an elongate stick having a rolling spinnable wheel or sphere or other rolling object 146 at the distal end of the stick 64. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 is motorized or self-propelled. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may pull the stick 64 forwardly (and thus the pedestrian user forwardly), may push the stick 64 rearwardly (and thus the pedestrian user rearwardly), may turn the stick 64 to the right (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the right), and/or may turn the stick 64 to the left (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the left). The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may stop rolling and stop spinning to stop the stick 64 (and thereby stop the pedestrian user) or may begin to roll and/or spin (and thereby begin to pull, push, turn and guide the pedestrian user)… a pulsation or small repeated pulsations are triggered in the handle of the intelligent walking stick 64
[col.21] These motes 118 may then communicate the information on such conditions to a radio transmitter that in turn communicate such information to the guided movement platform 10 that may be on the intelligent walking stick 64
[col.20-21] The intelligent walking stick 64: a) gently pulls, pushes, and steers the pedestrian user in reaching requested destinations, safely crossing streets, navigating inclines and declines, dips and rises, obstacles and hazards, low hanging hazards, following electronic paths, and other environmental features.
10. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the change of shape comprises bending of the sensory substitution device [col.10 ln.60] These wheels of the intelligent walking stick 64, wheelchair 66 and walker may pull a pedestrian user forwardly, push a pedestrian user rearwardly, pull a pedestrian user to the right, pull a pedestrian user to the left, steer a pedestrian user, stop a pedestrian user, or begin rotation so as to begin to pull or push a pedestrian user.
Examiner’s Note: It should be noted that “bending” is understood under broadest reasonable interpretation as referring to; the act of curving or distorting an object from its normal shape.
11. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured such that the sensory substitution device is substantially straight [FIG. 9] when the sensory substitution device is pointed at the target position [col.20-21].
13. (Currently Amended) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of The sensory substitution device of wherein the target position is a position determined using computer vision, light detection and ranging (LIDAR}, ultrasound, and/or infrared.
[col.2 ln.25] Radar and Sensor-Based Systems work in combination and comprise: microwave radar, millimeter-wave radar, laser radar, ultrasound, video image processing, infrared imaging, infrared illumination, ultraviolet illumination, etc. Transmitted electromagnetic energy detects energy reflected by objects and converts invisible images into visible images.
27. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to perform tilt compensation [col.22 ln.15] when the intelligent walking stick 64 of the pedestrian user moves too far from upright, but before reaching the sensed likelihood of falling, a pulsation or small repeated pulsations are triggered in the handle of the intelligent walking stick 64, urging a move to a more upright stance to compensate for tilting of the sensory substitution device [col.21 ln.40] …initiates a counter-thrust to assist in maintaining balance, h) initiates and advises appropriate, predetermined and computer learned actions in response to sensed information and verbal instructions, i) detects, identifies, locates, and displays sensed and imaged scenes, j) converts information into verbal communication, k) always employs more than one camera when the cane is in motion, l) predicts, detects, and circumvents hazards and obstacles, m) assists in maintaining balance.
28. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to provide the kinaesthetic output to the user of the sensory substitution device based at least in part on one or more digital markers [FIG.2; col.23 ln.40] RFID (radio frequency identification) system 20, includes the presence of a microchip, antenna 112, and reader 114, where the reader 114 sends out electromagnetic waves which are received by the antenna 112 and converted to digital data by the microchip. That is, with sensed data received, the intelligent pointer 148, with predetermined standards, sends identification data to the antenna 112, which converts the data into visually enhanced images... in the environment [col.21 ln.45] RFID tags can be positioned in public locations so as to identify the meat section, candy aisle, and vegetable stands at grocery stores; the teller booth, the auto ticket machine, the stairs, train platforms, the stalls in public restrooms, etc.
33. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the kinaesthetic output is indicative of a path between the sensory substitution device and the target position [col.5, col.20-21] A motorized cane gently pulls, pushes, and steers the impaired individual in reaching requested destinations… gently guides the pedestrian user back to the on-course path… intelligent walking stick 64 is an elongate stick having a rolling spinnable wheel or sphere or other rolling object 146 at the distal end of the stick 64. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 is motorized or self-propelled. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may pull the stick 64 forwardly (and thus the pedestrian user forwardly), may push the stick 64 rearwardly (and thus the pedestrian user rearwardly), may turn the stick 64 to the right (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the right), and/or may turn the stick 64 to the left (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the left). The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may stop rolling and stop spinning to stop the stick 64 (and thereby stop the pedestrian user) or may begin to roll and/or spin (and thereby begin to pull, push, turn and guide the pedestrian user), wherein the path corresponds to a biomechanically optimal path to the target position relative to a different, mathematically and/or spatially optimal path to the target position [col.5 ln.10] A motorized cane gently pulls, pushes, and steers the impaired individual in reaching requested destinations, safely crossing streets, navigating curbs, inclines & declines, dips & rises, obstacles & hazards, low hanging hazards, following electronic paths, maintaining balance.
35. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to alert the user in response to detecting a danger and/or a potential danger [col.5 ln.25] warns when a vehicle is dangerously close; warns (advises) surrounding vehicles when an impaired person is crossing the street… [col.22] small repeated pulsations can be provided at certain times through the frame of the intelligent walking stick 64 as a warning
42. In re claim 42, the limitations presented are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system of claim 1; for more information, please see the rejection in re claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of XXX.
9. (Currently Amended) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to change shape *** [col.20 ln.60-col.21].
Ellis lacks the following limitations:
based on closed-loop feedback… wherein the closed-loop feedback is based on a difference between the target position and a position in the environment at which the sensory substitution device is pointed, and wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to change shape multiple times per second based on the closed-loop feedback
Regarding the lacking limitation; Albertson (US-20080170118-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for wherein the closed-loop feedback is based on a difference between the target position and a position in the environment at which the sensory substitution device is pointed [0042] In one example, the images captured from image capture device 202 and image capture device 204 enable distance detection, and wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to change shape multiple times … based on the closed-loop feedback [0142-144] Tactile feedback controller 750 receives tactile signals from navigation system 720 and transmits signals to each of wireless transmitters 1002 and 1006 to direct tactile output from wristbands 1004 and 1008… 720 transmits tactile signals to each of wristbands 1004 and 1008 for controlling the pulse patterns, positions, force, duration, frequency, and timing of outputs around the circumference of each wristband.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include a closed-loop feedback is based on a difference between the target position and a position in the environment at which the sensory substitution device is pointed, and wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to change shape multiple times … based on the closed-loop feedback with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Albertson, for the benefit of providing feedback for navigational control methods, enabling a system to monitor, recognize, and account for currently sensed environmental data in providing navigation to a destination.
Furthermore, Albertson teaches that tactile signals can be controlled using a timing variable, such pulse patterns, duration, frequency, said variables can be optimized for the benefit of providing feedback for navigational control methods, enabling a system to monitor, recognize, and account for currently sensed environmental data in providing navigation to a destination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Albertson by adjusting the timing variables to include rate of multiple times “per second” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhang (US-20180256435-A1).
19. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) lacks The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the shape-change mechanism comprises elastomeric material.
Regarding the limitation; Zhang (US-20180256435-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0107] Details of the stabilizing structure 2 are shown in FIG. 6. Referring to FIG. 6, the contact member 21 includes a connection shaft 211 and two elastic wheels such as contact wheels 212 for contact with the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include elastomeric material with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Zhang, for the benefit of comprising a material which is able to reduce impact or shock in providing malleable support for a system over a surface environment.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Boss (US-9486382-B1).
20. (Currently Amended) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) lacks The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the shape-change mechanism is configured to cause the sensory substitution device to return to an equilibrium shape when the sensory substitution device is powered off.
Regarding the limitation; Boss (US-9486382-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [col.12 ln.10] control console 160 is programmed to return the tilt and spin mechanisms 60,190 to their default positions 65,195 if an emergency condition is detected, such as detecting no activity or movement of the person for a predetermined period of time based on monitoring fluctuations in air pressure in the cushions 80 or a separate motion sensor 415 (FIG. 6A), an electrical ground fault, a power failure, actuation of an emergency stop button 220, deactivation of the control console 160 by the person 20, or the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include a configuration to cause the sensory substitution device to return to an equilibrium shape when the sensory substitution device is powered off with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Boss, for the benefit of providing a control method for returning a system to a predetermined default operation position in response to emergency situations or powering down operations [col.12].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of XXX.
21. (Currently Amended) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) lacks The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to be controlled using Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping (SLAM).
Regarding the limitation; Morbi (US-20150051519-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0129] In the event the device is used to guide a user from one point within a given environment to another point in that environment (e.g., the device is used to automatically or autonomously direct a user from their bed to the x-ray room), the computing system may incorporate localization methods (such as SLAM) for mapping the environment and navigation methods (such A* search) for planning efficient routes within the environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to be controlled using SLAM with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Morbi, for the benefit of planning efficient routes within an environment [0129].
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pepin (US-20030179133-A1).
24. (Currently Amended) The sensory substitution device claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is operable to be controlled by at least one person other than the user while the user is using the sensory substitution device.
Regarding the limitation; Pepin (US-20030179133-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for wireless navigation systems comprising a method: [claim(s) 16-18] wherein said wireless handheld computing platform uses wireless protocols to transfer images captured by the digital camera to a remote location server or operator; wherein a remote location server or operator capable of image analysis is adapted to receive transmissions from the system and identify objects within an image for the user; wherein said wireless handheld computing platform uses wireless protocols to receive, from said remote location server or operator, image analysis results such as entrance location of a building and guiding instructions to that entrance; identification of objects or signs encountered by the user while walking; indoor guiding instructions and outdoor guiding instructions if the GPS signal is not available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include wherein the sensory substitution device is operable to be controlled by at least one person other than the user while the user is using the sensory substitution device with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Pepin, for the benefit of guiding instructions if the GPS signal is not available [claim(s) 16-18]
25. (Previously Presented) The sensory substitution device of claim 24, wherein the sensory substitution device is operable
***
based at least in part on video data transmitted to a device of the at least one person, the video data representing the environment in which the sensory substitution device is located [col.21 ln.35] The guided movement platform 10, whether engaged to intelligent walking stick 64, intelligent wheelchair 66, intelligent walker 68: a) performs video analysis and automated video monitoring, b) employs computer vision algorithms to analyze camera images and extract information, c) activates automatic processing of data.
Ellis lacks the following underlined limitations:
wherein the sensory substitution device is operable to be controlled by the at least one person based at least
Regarding the limitation; Pepin (US-20030179133-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for wireless navigation systems comprising a method: [claim(s) 16-18] wherein said wireless handheld computing platform uses wireless protocols to transfer images captured by the digital camera to a remote location server or operator; wherein a remote location server or operator capable of image analysis is adapted to receive transmissions from the system and identify objects within an image for the user; wherein said wireless handheld computing platform uses wireless protocols to receive, from said remote location server or operator, image analysis results such as entrance location of a building and guiding instructions to that entrance; identification of objects or signs encountered by the user while walking; indoor guiding instructions and outdoor guiding instructions if the GPS signal is not available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include wherein the sensory substitution device is operable to be controlled by at least one person other than the user while the user is using the sensory substitution device with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Pepin, for the benefit of guiding instructions if the GPS signal is not available [claim(s) 16-18]
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hu (US-20180106636-A1).
30. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to use one or more stimuli to indicate that the user is pointing the sensory substitution device
*** toward the
target position [col.20 ln.60] intelligent walking stick 64 is an elongate stick having a rolling spinnable wheel or sphere or other rolling object 146 at the distal end of the stick 64. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 is motorized or self-propelled. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may pull the stick 64 forwardly (and thus the pedestrian user forwardly), may push the stick 64 rearwardly (and thus the pedestrian user rearwardly), may turn the stick 64 to the right (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the right), and/or may turn the stick 64 to the left (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the left). The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may stop rolling and stop spinning to stop the stick 64 (and thereby stop the pedestrian user) or may begin to roll and/or spin (and thereby begin to pull, push, turn and guide the pedestrian user).
Ellis lacks the following underlined limitations:
within a given error bound of the target position
Regarding the limitation; Hu (US-20180106636-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0053] It should be noted that, in embodiments of the present disclosure, the term “substantially” indicates that an error between a desired value and an actual value does not exceed a preset range. The preset range may be within ±5% , ±10% or another suitable range. For example, an expression “a direction indicated by the tactile signal substantially coinciding with a suggested moving direction provided to the user of the wearable tactile navigation device” may indicate that an error range between an angle of the direction indicated by the tactile signal and an angle of a suggested moving direction provided to the user does not exceed the angle of the suggested moving direction provided to the user by ±5% , ±10% or another suitable error range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include navigation to a target position with a given error bound with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Hu, for the benefit of ensuring accuracy moving directions are within acceptable predetermined ranges.
31. (Currently Amended) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) discloses The sensory substitution device claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to use one or more stimuli to indicate that the user is not pointing the sensory substitution device
*** toward the
target position [col.20 ln.60] intelligent walking stick 64 is an elongate stick having a rolling spinnable wheel or sphere or other rolling object 146 at the distal end of the stick 64. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 is motorized or self-propelled. The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may pull the stick 64 forwardly (and thus the pedestrian user forwardly), may push the stick 64 rearwardly (and thus the pedestrian user rearwardly), may turn the stick 64 to the right (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the right), and/or may turn the stick 64 to the left (and thus guide the pedestrian user to the left). The rolling spinnable wheel 64 may stop rolling and stop spinning to stop the stick 64 (and thereby stop the pedestrian user) or may begin to roll and/or spin (and thereby begin to pull, push, turn and guide the pedestrian user).
Ellis lacks the following underlined limitations:
within a given error bound of the target position
Regarding the limitation; Hu (US-20180106636-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0053] It should be noted that, in embodiments of the present disclosure, the term “substantially” indicates that an error between a desired value and an actual value does not exceed a preset range. The preset range may be within ±5% , ±10% or another suitable range. For example, an expression “a direction indicated by the tactile signal substantially coinciding with a suggested moving direction provided to the user of the wearable tactile navigation device” may indicate that an error range between an angle of the direction indicated by the tactile signal and an angle of a suggested moving direction provided to the user does not exceed the angle of the suggested moving direction provided to the user by ±5% , ±10% or another suitable error range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include navigation to a target position with a given error bound with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Hu, for the benefit of ensuring accuracy moving directions are within acceptable predetermined ranges.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Elenga (US-20180333748-A1) and Hu (US-20180106636-A1).
37. (Previously Presented) Ellis (US-9062986-B1) lacks The sensory substitution device of claim 1, wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to perform non-linear actuation, wherein an amount of shape change of the sensory substitution device correlates non-linearly to an amount of error between a pointing position and the target position.
Regarding the limitation; “…wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to perform non-linear actuation”, Elenga (US-20180333748-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0004] non-linear haptic actuators that use a rotor, rotor-suspension, and spring subsystem to efficiently generate vibrational forces in various types of devices and appliances in which the non-linear haptic actuators are incorporated. Non-linear haptic actuators can be designed and manufactured to be more space efficient than unbalanced-electric-motor and linear-resonant vibration modules and, because most of the frictional forces produced in unbalanced-electric-motor and linear-resonant vibration modules are eliminated from non-linear haptic actuators, non-linear haptic actuators are generally more power efficient and robust than unbalanced-electric-motor and linear-resonant vibration modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Ellis to include wherein the sensory substitution device is configured to perform non-linear actuation with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Elenga, for the benefit of providing a system capable of robust performance in space and power efficiency [0004].
For more information on the limitation(s) above, please see the Conclusion below to include; Johnson (US-20060142683-A1).
Regarding the limitation(s); “wherein an amount of shape change of the sensory substitution device correlates to an amount of error between a pointing position and the target position”, The limitations presented are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system of claim(s) 30 and 31; for more information, please see the rejection in re claim(s) 30 and 31. It should be noted Hu (US-20180106636-A1) also discloses wherein, [0063] a direction of the force signal substantially coincides with the suggested moving direction provided to the user. For example, when the suggested moving direction provided to the user is going forward, the direction of the force signal is pointed substantially forward with respect to the user; when the suggested moving direction provided to the user is turning right by 45 degrees, the direction of the force signal is pointed substantially 45 degrees to the right with respect to the user; and when the moving indication provided to the user is to stop, the direction of the force signal is pointed backward with respect to the user.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US-9062986-B1), and Campbell (US-8825389-B1), in view of Morbi (US-20150051519-A1).
46. In re claim 46, the limitations presented are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system of claim(s) 1 and 21; for more information, please see the rejection in re claim(s) 1 and 21.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/TYLER J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights