DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 22 June 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-24 are now pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, corresponding to claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 17 July 2024, 03 October 2024, 25 February 2025, 27 April 2026, and 30 July 2026 was/were filed before mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Disclosure
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Linear Actuator with Reactive Force Path.
The 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are, for example, “a drive force generator” and “a reactive force path” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites “a drive force generator” and “a reactive force path” configured to “selectively impart a drive force” and “generating a return force”, respectively.
Claims 2-11, 14, and 16-17 further recite characteristics of the “force response curve”, “plateau region”, and of the various forces generated by these generic force generating means.
The above claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szeto et al. (US 2019/0050056 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Szeto”.
Regarding claim 1, Szeto discloses a linear actuator [100] (fig. 1-6; ¶ 0079-0080) comprising a mass [110] movably mounted in a linear displacement path [106] (fig. 2; ¶ 0084-0085),
a drive force generator [108] configured to selectively impart a drive force to the mass [110] in the orientation of the linear displacement path [106] (fig. 2; ¶ 0085-0087), and
a reactive force path [104] generating a return force when the mass [110] is displaced from a rest position, the return force being in the orientation of the linear displacement path [106] and towards the rest position (fig. 2B; ¶ 0087),
PNG
media_image1.png
462
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the amplitude of the return force varying as a function of the position of the mass [110] in the linear displacement path [106] in accordance with a force response curve, the force response curve having regions of increasing return force [region 2] associated to opposite ends of the linear displacement path [106], and a plateau region [region 1] located between the regions of increasing return force (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 2, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the plateau region [region 1] has a span corresponding to a portion of the linear displacement path [106] which is greater than the span of at least one of the regions of increasing return force [region 2] (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 3, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein the span of the plateau region [region 1] is greater than 1.5 times the span of either one of the regions of increasing return force [region 2] (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 4, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein at least one of the regions {of} increasing return force [region 2] leads to a point of maximum return force associated to a corresponding end of the linear displacement path [106] (fig. 2, 2B; the force between the permanent magnets is inversely proportional to the distance between them), wherein, in normalized units in which the value of maximum return force is equal to the value of half the distance span of the linear displacement path [106], the plateau region [region 1] is defined as a continuous portion of the linear displacement path [106] where the slope of variation of return force on variation of displacement remains below 1, the plateau region [region 1] extending between points of the force response curve where the slope is equal to 1 (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 5, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 4, as stated above, wherein the regions of increasing return force [region 2] have a slope remaining above 1 on more than % of their respective span (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 6, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 4, as stated above, wherein the slope of the plateau region [region 1] remains below 0.5 for more % of the span of the plateau region [region 1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 7, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein at least one of the regions of increasing return force [region 2] leads to a point of maximum return force associated to a corresponding end of the linear displacement path [106] (fig. 2, 2B; the force between the permanent magnets is inversely proportional to the distance between them), wherein the return force remains between 5% and 20% of the maximum return force over more than % of the span of the plateau region [region 1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 8, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein at least one of the regions of increasing return force [region 2] leads to a point of maximum return force associated to a corresponding end of the linear displacement path [106] (fig. 2, 2B; the force between the permanent magnets is inversely proportional to the distance between them), wherein in normalized units in which the value of maximum return force is equal to the value of half the distance span of the linear displacement path [106], the regions of increasing return force [region 2] have a slope of variation of return force on variation of displacement above 1 on more than % of their respective span, the plateau region [region 1] has a slope below 1 on more than % of a span of the plateau region [region 1], and wherein the return force remains below 10% of the maximum return force over more than % of the span of the plateau region [region 1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 9, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 8, as stated above, wherein, the return force remains below 10% of the maximum return force over the entire span of the plateau region [region 1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 10, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 8, as stated above, wherein the force response curve is shaped as a portion of a curve formed by a cubic polynomial function of the type y = (x3), the portion being centered on x = 0, the x = 0 position corresponding to the rest position of the force response curve (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 11, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the reactive force path is formed of the combination of at least two force elements, including a first force element [102] (fig. 2; ¶ 0084) exhibiting a first individual force response curve shaped as a portion of a curve formed by a cubic polynomial function of the type y = (x3), the portion being centered on x = 0, the x=0 position corresponding to the rest position of the force response curve (since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims), and a second force element [104] (fig. 2; ¶ 0084) exhibiting a second individual force response curve shaped as a portion of a curve formed by an exponential function formed by the equation y = bx - 1, the x = 0 position corresponding to the rest position of the force response curve (since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 14, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the force response curve is asymmetric relative to the rest position (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 16, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein at least one of the regions {of} increasing return force [region 2] leads to a point of maximum return force associated to a corresponding end of the linear displacement path [106] (fig. 2, 2B; the force between the permanent magnets is inversely proportional to the distance between them), wherein in normalized units in which the value of maximum return force is equal to the value of half the distance span of the linear displacement path [106], wherein a slope of variation of return force on variation of displacement is above 0.5 at the rest position (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Regarding claim 17, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 16, as stated above, wherein the slope of variation of return force on variation of displacement is above 0.8 at the rest position (fig. 2; ¶ 0165; since there is no additional structure recited in, or implied by, these limitations, these limitations are met by the structure discussed above or in the previous claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szeto in view of Zhang (US 6,326,706 B1), hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 12, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 1, as stated above. Szeto does not disclose that the reactive force path [104] is formed of the combination of at least two force elements including an A type force element [132] and a B type force element (fig. 2B; the reactive force path comprises only a permanent magnet, rather than both a permanent magnet and a mechanical spring).
Zhang discloses a linear actuator [10] comprising a mass [50] having axially polarized permanent magnets [55], a stator [20] comprising electromagnets [40] (fig. 1B; col. 4, lines 6-30), and
a reactive force path [61,62] formed of a combination of at least two force elements including an A type force element [62] and a B type force element [61] (fig. 1A-1B; col. 5, line 52 to col. 6, line 24; the reactive force path comprises both a permanent magnet and a mechanical spring).
PNG
media_image2.png
507
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 reactive force path of Szeto having both magnet and spring type force elements as taught by Zhang, in order to make the mass’s natural frequency close to that of the power supply so that the mass can operate at its resonant frequency (col. 6, lines 25-38 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 13, Szeto, in view of Zhang, discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 12, as stated above, wherein Zhang further discloses that the reactive force path [61,62] is formed of the combination of at least a first permanent magnet force element [62] and a second permanent magnet force element [62’], each permanent magnet force element [62,62’] having a permanent magnetic field oriented parallel to the linear displacement path (fig. 1A-1B; the magnets are polarized along the left-right movement direction), the first permanent magnet force element [62] is longitudinally adjacent to the magnetic segment [55] when the mass [50] is at the rest position, and the permanent magnetic field of the first permanent magnet force element [62] is directed in a same direction as a permanent magnetic field of the magnetic segment [55], the second permanent magnet force element [62’] is transversally aligned with the magnetic segment [55] when the mass [50] is at the rest position, and the permanent magnetic field {of} the second permanent magnet force element [62’] is directed in an opposite direction as the permanent magnetic field of the magnetic segment [55] (fig. 1B; the force elements are similarly and oppositely polarized, respectively, relative to the magnetic segment as shown in the figures).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szeto.
Regarding claim 15, Szeto discloses the linear actuator [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the linear actuator [100] is a haptics actuator (¶ 0079). Szeto does not explicitly disclose that the mass [110] is between 0.5kg and 2kg, and a peak natural frequency of the linear actuator [100] is between 5Hz and 500Hz.
Szeto does disclose that the mass can be adjusted to increase or decrease the strength of the impacts of the haptic actuator (¶ 0143-0144), and that a peak natural frequency of the linear actuator [100] can be adjusted to produce different haptic effects (¶ 0254). Thus, both the mass and the frequency of the haptic actuator are disclosed as being result effective variables.
Thus, 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 mass between 0.5kg and 2kg and to set the peak natural frequency between 5Hz and 500Hz, because both variables shape the haptic effects produced, thereby enhancing the immersive quality of video games, virtual reality simulations, movies, etc. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Tangudu et al. (US 2021/0131492 A1) discloses an actuator having axially aligned permanent magnets on both moving and stationary components.
Vogel (US 2011/0210690 A1) discloses a linear actuator comprising a mass having a magnetic segment, a drive force generator, and a reactive force path.
Sahyoun (US 7,859,144 B1) discloses a linear actuator comprising a mass having axially polarized permanent magnets and a stator comprising electromagnets and an axially polarized permanent magnet force element.
Schrader et al. (US 2009/0218892 A1) discloses a linear actuator comprising a mass having axially polarized permanent magnets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights