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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Embodiment 1, Figures 1D-3C, Claims 1-3, 8-24 in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the embodiments are not mutually exclusive. This is persuasive the requirement is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2024, 10/07/2025 and 01/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. [US 2023/0094873].
Claim 1, Chen et al. discloses a device, comprising: a frame [262] defining at least one flexure [318a/318b]; and a haptic engine [201], including: a core [222] attached to the frame [paragraph 0080 and 0085]; an attraction plate [212] attached to the at least one flexure [figures 2b and 2c], the attraction plate separated from the core by a gap [258]; and an electric coil wound [224] around at least a portion of the core that, when energized, creates a magnetic field that causes a width of the gap to temporarily change [figures 2b and 2c; paragraph 0086-0087].
Claim 9, Chen et al. discloses a device, comprising: a frame [262]; a haptic engine [201], including: a core [222] coupled to the frame [paragraph 0080 and 0085]; an attraction plate [212] coupled to the frame [via flexures 218a/218b], interior to the frame [figures 2b and 2c], and separated from the core by a gap [258]; and an electric coil [224] wound around at least a portion of the core that, when energized, creates a magnetic field that causes a width of the gap to temporarily change [figures 2b and 2c; paragraph 0086-0087].
Claim 12, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 9, further comprising a spacer [216a/216b] disposed between the attraction plate [212] and the frame [202/262], wherein the attraction plate is attached to the spacer [via flexures 218a/218b], and the spacer is attached to the frame [figures 2b and 2c].
Claim 13, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 9, further comprising: a device housing [202] defining an opening [figures 2b and 2c]; and a button [206a] positioned external to the device housing and coupled to the frame through the opening [figures 2b and 2c], wherein in response to an input force applied on the button, the core is deflected towards the attraction plate, thereby reducing the gap [paragraph 0082].
Claim 19, Chen et al. discloses a device, comprising: a frame [262]; a haptic engine [201], including: a core [222] attached to the frame [paragraphs 0080 and 0085]; an attraction plate [212] separated from a surface of the core by a gap [158]; and an electric coil [224] wound around at least a portion of the core that, when energized, creates a magnetic field that causes a width of the gap to temporarily change [figures 2b and 2c; paragraph 0086-0087]; and a layer [218a/218b] of a compliant material attaching the attraction plate to the frame [paragraph 0046].
Claim 20, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the compliant material comprises a gel [paragraph 0046].
Claim 22, Chen et al. discloses a device, comprising: a device housing; a frame [262] positioned internal to the device housing [202]; and a haptic engine [201] including: a core [222] attached to the frame [paragraphs 0080 and 0085]; an attraction plate [212] disposed between the device housing and the core [figure 2b], the attraction plate separated from the core by a gap [158]; and an electric coil [224] wound around at least a portion of the core that, when energized, creates a magnetic field that causes a width of the gap to temporarily change [figures 2b and 2c; paragraph 0086-0087].
Claim 23, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 22, wherein: the core [222] defines a cavity [recess in which coil 224 is located; figure 2b] facing the attraction plate [212; figure 2b]; and the electric coil [224] is disposed in the cavity [figure 2b].
Claim 24, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 22, further comprising: a button [206a] positioned external to the device housing [202] and coupled to the frame [262] through an opening defined by the device housing [figure 2b], wherein in response to an input force applied on the button, the core is deflected away from the attraction plate, thereby increasing the gap [paragraph 0083].
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. [US 2023/0094873] in view of Blaeser et al. [US 6,37,662].
Claim 2, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 1, with the exception of the frame comprises a plate; and the at least one flexure comprises a flexure defined by a portion of the plate disposed between a pair of slits in the plate.
Blaeser et al. teaches a one-piece flexure plate structure [figures 3 and 4] wherein a frame comprises a plate [14]; and at least one flexure [32] comprises a flexure defined by a portion of the plate disposed between a pair of slits [20/21] in the plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plate and flexure of Chen et al. as a one-piece structure as taught by Blaeser et al. in order to simplify manufacturing by reducing the number of components since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 3, Chen et al. as modified discloses the device of claim 2, wherein Blaeser et al. teaches at least one slit of the pair of slits [21] has a non-linear or arcuate portion [curved portions; figure 4].
Claim 4, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 1, wherein: the frame comprises a plate; and the at least one flexure comprises: a first flexure defined by a first portion of the plate disposed between a first pair of slits in the plate; and a second flexure defined by a second portion of the plate disposed between a second pair of slits in the plate.
Blaeser et al. teaches a one-piece flexure plate structure [figures 3 and 4] with frame comprises a plate [14]; and the at least one flexure comprises: a first flexure [32] defined by a first portion of the plate disposed between a first pair of slits [20/21] in the plate; and a second flexure [30] defined by a second portion of the plate disposed between a second pair of slits [22/24] in the plate [figure 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plate and flexures of Chen et al. as a one-piece structure as taught by Blaeser et al. in order to simplify manufacturing by reducing the number of components since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 8, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 1, with the exception of the frame comprises a plate; and the at least one flexure comprises a first portion of the plate that has a smaller width than a second portion of the plate.
Blaeser et al. teaches a one-piece flexure plate structure [figures 3 and 4] with frame comprises a plate [14]; and the at least one flexure [32] comprises a first portion of the plate that has a smaller width than a second portion of the plate [figure 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plate and flexures of Chen et al. as a one-piece structure as taught by Blaeser et al. in order to simplify manufacturing by reducing the number of components since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 5 isrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. [US 2023/0094873] in view of Fu [US 200330137774].
Claim 5, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 1, with the exception of the frame comprises a plate; and the at least one flexure comprises at least one cantilever defined by at least one slit in the plate.
Fu teaches a one-piece flexure plate structure [figure 3] wherein a frame comprises a plate a plate [50]; and at least one flexure [58] comprises at least one cantilever defined by at least one slit in the plate [figure 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plate and flexure of Chen et al. as a one-piece structure as taught by Fu in order to simplify manufacturing by reducing the number of components since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. [US 2023/0094873], as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Baer [EP 06022791].
Claim 10, Chen et al. discloses the device of claim 9, with the exception of wherein: the attraction plate is attached to the frame by at least one weld; and the device further comprises glue disposed along a perimeter of the at least one weld.
Baer teaches a attaching two surfaces by at least one weld [5, 7]; and further comprises glue [11] disposed along a perimeter of the at least one weld [abs, figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide use the attachment of Baer in the device of Chen et al. so that the attraction plate is attached to the frame by at least one weld; and the device further comprises glue disposed along a perimeter of the at least one weld in order to provide a robust attachment region between the two since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. [US 2023/0094873] in view of Baer [EP 06022791]as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kilwin [US 2006/0243382].
Claim 11, Chen et al. as modified discloses the device of claim 10, with the exception of the frame defines a glue injection port in a portion of the frame adjacent the attraction plate.
Kilwin teaches using ports [17/42] in a part [11] in order to inject adhesive [71] into a bonding area [paragraphs 0033 and 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
use the glue injection port of Kilwin in the device of Chen et al. in view of Baer so
the frame defines a glue injection port in a portion of the frame adjacent the attraction plate in order to facilitate application of the adhesive since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. [US 2023/0094873] in view of Shahoian [US 6,982,696].
Claim 14, Chen et al. disclose a device, comprising: a frame [262]; a haptic engine [201], including: a core [222] attached to the frame [paragraphs 0080 and 0085]; an attraction plate [212] attached to the frame [via flexures 218a/218b] and separated from a surface of the core by a gap [258]; and an electric coil [224] wound around at least a portion of the core that, when energized, causes a width of the gap to temporarily change [figures 2b and 2c; paragraph 0086-0087].
Chen et al fails to teach that a cushioning pad positioned within the gap, on at least one of the attraction plate or the surface of the core.
Shahoian teaches an actuator [100] comprising a cushioning pad [122] positioned in a gap [figure 2] between a core [102] and a movable member [105] in order to adjust the haptic feedback [col. 7 lines 17-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cushioning pad of Shahoian in the device of Chen et al. in order to limit the range of motion, provide variable feedback between the moving parts and adjust the frequency response [Shahoian; col. 7 lines 17-28].
Claim 15, Chen et al. as modified discloses the device of claim 14, wherein Shahoian teaches that the cushioning pad [122] comprises a first material [elastic foam] that has a lower hardness than a second material of the core and a third material of the attraction plate [inherently disclosed, as the foam is the member that compresses during actuation; col. 7 lines 2-7].
Claim 16, Chen et al. as modified discloses the device of claim 15, wherein Shahoian teaches that the first material includes at least one of: a foam [col. 7 lines 2-7], polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide, silicone, a pressure-sensitive adhesive, or any combination thereof.
Claim 17, Chen et al. as modified discloses the device of claim 14, wherein Shahoian teaches that the cushioning pad [122] spans a width of the gap [figure 2].
Claim 18, Chen et al. as modified discloses the device of claim 14, wherein Shahoian teaches that the cushioning pad [122] fills the entire gap but fails to teach that
the cushioning pad has a surface area greater than a portion of the surface of the core that abuts the gap. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the size of the cushion pad so that a surface area of the cushion pad is greater than a portion of the surface of the core that abuts the gap in order to fill the entire gap as taught by Shahoian [figure 2], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. [US 2023/0094873], as applied to claim 19 above, in view of De Jong [US 2017/0090521].
Claim 21, Chen et al. as modified discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the flexures [118a/118b] may include any mechanical suspension structure, such as a metallic flexure, an elastic gel structure, a wire mesh, any combination thereof, and so on [paragraph 0046].
Cheng et al. fails to teach that the compliant material comprises a silicone overmolded on a portion of the frame or the attraction plate.
De Jong teaches an elastomeric gasket encapsulating functional components by molding silicon around the components [paragraphs 0030 and 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the silicon overmolded compliant material of De Jong in the device of Chen et al.,since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
