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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method of gathering and displaying data.
The limitations of implementing a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic radiation force to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves have at least one side lobe region emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point; locating the at least one side lobe region by: taking a series of sample points, wherein the series of sample points are at least 2 per wavelength of the ultrasonic waves; removing a main lobe if it is present in the series of sample points to produce a second series of sample points; calculating a Gibbs Metric for the second series of samples points, as drafted, is a system that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process (i.e., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers the claimed invention amounts to gathering and performing routine calculations. For example, but for the phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers these claims encompass data corresponding to received ultrasonic display being gathered and calculating a value based on a selected portion of the gathered data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting data and analyzing certain results but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers that implements the abstract idea. The phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers are not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards and abstract idea.
The claims further recite two additional elements of (1) implementing a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic radiation force to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves have at least one side lobe region emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point; (2) locating the at least one side lobe region by: taking a series of sample points, wherein the series of sample points are at least 2 per wavelength of the ultrasonic waves; (3) removing a main lobe if it is present in the series of sample points to produce a second series of sample points. Each of these transmitting and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of transmitting and receiving signals) and amounts to the mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional element of (1) calculating a Gibbs Metric for the second series of samples points. The Gibbs metric calculation merely amount to selecting information based on the types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display (MPEP 2106.05(g)), which has been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of calculation of the Gibbs metric amounts to no more than selecting information based on the types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display. Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) indicates that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the results cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more).
Also as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) implementing a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic radiation force to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves have at least one side lobe region emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point; (2) locating the at least one side lobe region by: taking a series of sample points, wherein the series of sample points are at least 2 per wavelength of the ultrasonic waves; (3) removing a main lobe if it is present in the series of sample points to produce a second series of sample points. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, convention activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that Storing and retrieving information in memory has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Well-understood, routine, and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the Gibbs metric calculation was determined as not providing inventive concept. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the results cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. ("Fibonacci spiral arranged ultrasound phased array for mid-air haptics." 2018 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS). IEEE, 2018., “Price”) in view of Kappus et al. (US 20210397261 A1, “Kappus”).
Regarding claim 2, Price discloses a system comprising: a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic field to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves having side lobes emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point (Fig. 2, [pg. 2], linear phased array with non-uniform directivity with a focal point situated in the middle results in grating lobes that are reduced when compared with when the focal point is angled off to one side),
Price may not explicitly disclose the acoustic field has at least one null region; wherein apodization of the phased array in an orthogonal direction to the at least one null region reduces the side lobes.
Kappus teaches the acoustic field has at least one null region; wherein apodization of the phased array in an orthogonal direction to the at least one null region reduces the side lobes ([0109]-[0110], using Moore-Penrose activation solution, null points can be placed near sensitive items/animals/people. Multiple null points can be created around the central null to enlarge the null region).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mid-air haptics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Price, to include the null region and apodization of Kappus with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of mitigating any possible effects caused by ultrasound around sensitive items/animals/people [0109].
Regarding claim 3, Price, as modified in view of Kappus teaches system as in claim 2. Kappus further teaches the at least one null region comprises at least two different positions of quiet regions([0109]-[0110], using Moore-Penrose activation solution, null points can be placed near sensitive items/animals/people. Multiple null points can be created around the central null to enlarge the null region).
Regarding claim 4, Price, as modified in view of Kappus teaches the system as in claim 2. Kappus further teaches the at least one null region comprises superpositions of multiple quiet regions([0109]-[0110], using Moore-Penrose activation solution, null points can be placed near sensitive items/animals/people. Multiple null points can be created around the central null to enlarge the null region)([0020] phased arrays function on the principle of superposition. Superpositions occur when linear quantities that describe waves add together to create areas of constructive and destructive interference)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the enlarged null region comprises superpositions of the multiple null points utilized to create the enlarged null region).
Regarding claim 5, Price, as modified in view of Kappus teaches the system as in claim 2. Kappus further teaches the apodization is only applied to a subdomain of the phased array ([0016] if grating lobes are a problem, it is possible to reduce their impact by apodizing the transducer elements by creating a tapered set of amplitudes near the edges).
Regarding claim 6, Price, as modified in view of Kappus teaches the system as in claim 2. Kappus further teaches the phased array has an x-axis and a y-axis, and wherein the apodization is targeted at a volume that is not directly aligned with the x-axis and the y-axis ([0104], excitation solvers can generate various acoustic fields considering specific points/lines/ volumes and allow the possibility of specifying the desired pressure distributions. By placing null points/lines/volumes at sensitive locations, amplitude of ultrasound can be mitigated)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that mitigation of amplitude is equivalent to apodization, and that the ability to place null points/lines/volumes in various areas includes the ability for the volume to be such that is not directly aligned with the x or y axis).
Regarding claim 7, Price, as modified in view of Kappus teaches the system as in claim 2. Kappus further teaches the apodization comprises superposition of axial apodizations to generate at least two null regions ([0109]-[0110], using Moore-Penrose activation solution, null points can be placed near sensitive items/animals/people. Multiple null points can be created around the central null to enlarge the null region)([0020] phased arrays function on the principle of superposition. Superpositions occur when linear quantities that describe waves add together to create areas of constructive and destructive interference)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the enlarged null region comprises superpositions of the multiple null points utilized to create the enlarged null region)([0016] if grating lobes are a problem, it is possible to reduce their impact by apodizing the transducer elements by creating a tapered set of amplitudes near the edges)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that multiple null regions may be generated at the edges of the linear phased array and would amount to two null regions being created).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price in view of Kappus and Lee et al. (WO 2020131145 A1, “Lee”)..
Regarding claim 8, Price, as modified in view of Kappus teaches the system as in claim 2. Kappus further teaches the apodization is one-dimensional and has an apodization axis([0016] if the transducers are arranged in such a way that grating lobes are a problem, it is possible to reduce their impact by apodizing the transducer elements by creating a tapered set of amplitudes near the edges.)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that employing the apodization of Kappus on the linear phased array disclosed in Price (See Price [pg. 2]), would result in tapered sets of amplitudes at the edges of the linear phased array which implicitly means that the apodization would implicitly have an axis that would be a line (one-dimensional) that extends along the direction of the linear phased array).
Price, as modified in view of Kappus may not explicitly teach the apodization axis is curved.
Lee teaches the apodization is one-dimensional and wherein the apodization axis is curved (Implicit, Fig. 4I, [000110] rings of transducers are arranged in a moveable bowl in a flat array)(It is the examiner’s interpretation that the apodization described in Kappus, applied to the circular array of Lee would implicitly generate a one-dimensional apodization axis along the edge of the array that is curved)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mid-air haptics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Price, as modified in view of Kappus, to include the circular array of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of generating focal point that may be moved via the movable bowl board that reduces the number of channels in the circuit boards and increases focus and pressure [000110].
Regarding claim 9, Price discloses a system comprising: a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic field to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves having side lobes emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point(Fig. 2, [pg. 2], linear phased array with non-uniform directivity with a focal point situated in the middle results in grating lobes that are reduced when compared with when the focal point is angled off to one side);
Price may not explicitly disclose apodization of the phased array is adjusted to reduce the side lobes while compensating for the at least one inoperative transducer.
Kappus teaches apodization of the phased array is adjusted to reduce the side lobes while compensating for the at least one inoperative transducer([0016] if grating lobes are a problem, it is possible to reduce their impact by apodizing the transducer elements by creating a tapered set of amplitudes near the edges)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the apodization may be performed around the inoperative transducer).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mid-air haptics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Price, to include the apodization of Kappus with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of mitigating any negative effects resulting from the presence of grating lobes [0016].
Price, as modified in view of Kappus may not explicitly teach at least one ultrasonic transducer is at least one inoperative transducer;
Lee teaches at least one ultrasonic transducer is at least one inoperative transducer ([000156], the systems may also include a failure-assessment mechanism that may help identify dynamically dead elements on the ultrasound arrays and compensate them by altering the algorithms, so the focal points or recipes are optimized);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mid-air haptics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Price, to include the inoperative transducer of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of compensating the algorithm in order to compensate for dynamically dead transducer elements so as to optimize focal points [000156].
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price in view of Rutsch et al. ("A compact acoustic waveguide for air-coupled ultrasonic phased arrays at 40 kHz." 2022 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS). IEEE, 2022., “Rutsch”).
Regarding claim 16, Price discloses system comprising: a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic field to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point(Fig. 2, [pg. 2], linear phased array with non-uniform directivity with a focal point situated in the middle results in grating lobes that are reduced when compared with when the focal point is angled off to one side);
Price may not explicitly disclose an acoustic structure that amplifies acoustic radiation within a specific region by diverting acoustic energy from other regions into the specific region without use of electrical power; wherein the acoustic structure is shared between multiple elements in the phased array thereby increasing an effective area of the acoustic structure without increasing spacing between the at least two ultrasonic transducers.
Rutsch teaches an acoustic structure that amplifies acoustic radiation within a specific region by diverting acoustic energy from other regions into the specific region without use of electrical power; wherein the acoustic structure is shared between multiple elements in the phased array thereby increasing an effective area of the acoustic structure without increasing spacing between the at least two ultrasonic transducers([pg. 2], waveguides consist of eight independent ducts with tapering width and reduced interelement spacing to allow for grating lobe free beamforming) ([pg. 2], waveguides may use Bezier-shaped ducts that introduce different propagation times of sound waves inside the ducts since each Bezier curve has different lengths) (implicit, [pg. 1], Fig. 1B illustrates the Bezier-shaped ducts provided by the waveguide with an inlet and an outlet)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the waveguiding structure is shared between multiple elements as each element has its own duct).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mid-air haptics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Price, to include the waveguide structure of Rutsch with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing grating lobe free beamforming and additional time delays for compensation [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 17, Price discloses a system comprising: a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic field to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves having grating lobes and side lobes emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point(Fig. 2, [pg. 2], linear phased array with non-uniform directivity with a focal point situated in the middle results in grating lobes that are reduced when compared with when the focal point is angled off to one side);
Price may not explicitly teach the at least two ultrasonic transducers are connected to at least two waveguide ducts, with each of the at least two ultrasonic transducers is an inlet for each of the at least two waveguide ducts, and an open aperture is an outlet for each of the at least two waveguide ducts; wherein the grating lobes are reduced by reducing spacing between each open aperture to enable alias free reconstruction of the ultrasonic waves; wherein the side lobes are reduced by tapering lengths of the at least two waveguide ducts such that an amplitude at each open aperture samples a band-limited function.
Rutsch teaches the at least two ultrasonic transducers are connected to at least two waveguide ducts, with each of the at least two ultrasonic transducers is an inlet for each of the at least two waveguide ducts, and an open aperture is an outlet for each of the at least two waveguide ducts; wherein the grating lobes are reduced by reducing spacing between each open aperture to enable alias free reconstruction of the ultrasonic waves ([pg. 2], waveguides consist of eight independent ducts with tapering width and reduced interelement spacing to allow for grating lobe free beamforming); wherein the side lobes are reduced by tapering lengths of the at least two waveguide ducts such that an amplitude at each open aperture samples a band-limited function ([pg. 2], waveguides may use Bezier-shaped ducts that introduce different propagation times of sound waves inside the ducts since each Bezier curve has different lengths).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mid-air haptics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Price, to include the waveguide structure of Rutsch with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing grating lobe free beamforming and additional time delays for compensation [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 18, Price, as modified in view of Rutsch teaches the system as in claim 17. Rutsch further teaches the at least two waveguide ducts attenuate the ultrasonic wave ([pg. 3], the Bezier waveguide has a reduced SPL due to the differing lengths of the ducts, resulting in a different resonant frequency and varying attenuation of acoustic energy).
Regarding claim 19, Price, as modified in view of Rutsch teaches the system as in claim 17. Rutsch teaches wherein the outlet of each of the at least two waveguide ducts is a set distance from an origin point, and wherein the inlet of each of the at least two waveguide ducts is the set distance from the origin point (implicit, [pg. 1], Fig. 1B illustrates the Bezier-shaped ducts provided by the waveguide with an inlet and an outlet)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that these waveguides implicitly have their inlets and outlets a set distance from an arbitrary origin point).
Regarding claim 20, Price, as modified in view of Rutsch teaches the system as in claim 19. Rutsch further teaches each of the at least two waveguide ducts is wrapped with helicity around a hypothetical cylinder or cone portion centered on the origin point(implicit, [pg. 1], Fig. 1B illustrates the Bezier-shaped ducts provided by the waveguide)(It is the examiner’s interpretation that possible Bezier-shape curves include curves that implicitly have a degree of helicity)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowable over prior art, however stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Price discloses a method comprising: implementing a phased array of at least two ultrasonic transducers for exerting an acoustic radiation force to at least one control point in midair, wherein phases from ultrasonic waves have at least one side lobe region emitted by the at least two ultrasonic transducers are adjusted such that the ultrasonic waves arrive concurrently at the at least one control point(Fig. 2, [pg. 2], linear phased array with non-uniform directivity with a focal point situated in the middle results in grating lobes that are reduced when compared with when the focal point is angled off to one side);
Price may not explicitly teach locating the at least one side lobe region by: taking a series of sample points, wherein the series of sample points are at least 2 per wavelength of the ultrasonic waves; removing a main lobe if it is present in the series of sample points to produce a second series of sample points; calculating a Gibbs Metric for the second series of samples points.
Carter et al. (US 10101811 B2, “Carter”) teaches locating the at least one side lobe region by: taking a series of sample points, wherein the series of sample points are at least 2 per wavelength of the ultrasonic waves; removing a main lobe if it is present in the series of sample points to produce a second series of sample points; ([column 15, lines 15-46], dynamic sampling of transducer output involves moving the focus point of each transducer by a fraction of a wavelength. By moving the focus point towards or away from the transducer by a half a wavelength, the activation coefficient can be changed. However Carter fails to teach the dynamic sampling in order to identify sidelobes, as well as the removal of sidelobes in order to generate an additional set of sample points. No other identified prior art teaches these limitations with sufficient motivation to combine.)
Kappus teaches calculating a Gibbs Metric for the second series of samples points ([0128], a metric may be calculated which determines the effectiveness of introduced null regions on suppressing the average sound pressure within a given volume. However while the Gibbs metric may be an average sound pressure value, Kappus fails to teach calculating the average sound pressure for a second series of sample points which only includes side lobes after removal of a main lobe. No other identified prior art teaches this limitation with sufficient motivation to combine).
Claims 10-15 are 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, as well as overcoming any relevant 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
Regarding claim 10, Price, as modified in view of Lee teaches the system as in claim 9. Price, as modified in view of Lee may not explicitly teach the compensating for the at least one inoperative transducer comprises generating a two-dimensional window function that places a zero-driving amplitude for each of the at least one inoperative transducer.
Kappus teaches the compensating for the at least one inoperative transducer comprises generating a two-dimensional window function that places a zero-driving amplitude for each of the at least one inoperative transducer ([0089], each device has a basis function that includes the position of the control point and a time windowing function that is defined by a center time/radius as well as a complex-valued apodization coefficient. However Kappus fails to teach a two-dimensional windowing function that places a zero-driving amplitude at each of the at least one inoperative transducers. No other identified prior art teaches these limitations with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claims 11-15, the claims are indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to their respective dependence upon a claim containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Long et al. (US 20180166063 A1, “Long”) which teaches driving techniques for phased array systems
Kappus et al. (US 20180310111 A1, “Kappus 2”) which teaches algorithm enhancements for haptics-based phased array systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645