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 Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 12/29/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the vehicle environment in which the claimed system and method operate, including at least one vehicle-specific embodiment of the receiver receiving an incoming message at the vehicle, the controller selecting a type of tactile signal, and the tactile signal operator providing information via the selected tactile signal in the vehicle must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marti (US 2019/0276051 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marti discloses a system for providing a vehicle with information of an incoming message using a tactile signal (fig. 1; abstract), the system comprising:
a receiver, the receiver receiving the incoming message at the vehicle (fig.1; [0018]-[0023]: discloses control units 160 and computing device 105 receive notifications and/or data from external sources (e.g., cloud servers, weather databases, V2X communication, etc.) that represent real-world conditions or hazard events);
a controller, the controller selecting a type of the tactile signal among different types of tactile signals depending on the information of the received incoming message to transform the incoming message to the selected type of the tactile signal (fig. 1; [0032], [0069]–[0070]: discloses notification module 136 determines a type of haptic sensation to generate on the user based on event data; [0032], [0062]: further explains the notification module 136 determines whether a haptic sensation should be generated and selects a type of haptic sensation to generate on the user ); and
a tactile signal operator, the tactile signal operator transforming the information of the incoming message into the selected type of the tactile signal and providing the information of the incoming message via the selected type of the tactile signal in the vehicle (Figs. 2A–2D, 4, 6; [0023], [0034]–[0036]: discloses haptic output devices 150 (including ultrasonic arrays, air vortex devices, pneumatic devices, etc.) generate the selected type of haptic sensation corresponding to the received message/event data),
wherein the tactile signal operator includes a tactile unit, and the tactile unit comprises a matrix of one or more tactile sensation providers to provide the selected type of the tactile signal in response to the information of the incoming message to the vehicle ([0034]: discloses that ultrasonic transducers may be arranged in arrays (e.g., 4×4, 8×8, 16×16), with each transducer controlled individually to generate tactile sensations).
Regarding claim 2, Marti discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the information of an incoming message comprises driver assistance information ([0062]: generating a haptic sensation instructing the driver to steer right to avoid a pothole), vehicle warning information (abstract, [0046]: warnings of real-world conditions such as a sharp turn, icy patch, stalled vehicle, or accident), and vehicle condition information (abstract, [0019]-[0020]: sensor data from a speedometer, fuel-level sensor, or tire pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Marti discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller selects the type of the tactile signal ([0032], [0069]–[0070]: discloses notification module 136 determines a type of haptic sensation to generate on the user based on event data) based on a setting for relating the information of the incoming message with the type of the tactile signal ([0028]–[0031]:describes that database 138 stores user preference data, pre-set configurations, and look-up tables which relate types of real-world conditions (the incoming information/messages) with corresponding types of haptic sensations to be generated. This is a setting/lookup that relates message information with tactile signal type, and the controller (notification module 136) uses that setting to select which tactile type to output.).
Regarding claim 8, Marti discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller selects a second type of the tactile signal ([0036]-[0038]: discloses that notification module 136 determines different types of haptic sensations to generate depending on event data and context); and provides information of the incoming message via the selected type of the tactile signal and the second type of the tactile signal in the vehicle ([0063]: teaches that multiple tactile signals can be used in combination to communicate information to the driver).
Regarding claim 9, Marti discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the controller provides information of the incoming message via the selected type of the tactile signal and the second type of the tactile signal sequentially ([0063]: teaches notification module 136 may configure haptic output devices 630 to generate a sequence of haptic sensations on the user’s hand that change position frequently in order to indicate many small ruts. Notification module 136 could then configure haptic output devices 630 to generate a second haptic sensation that indicates to the user that she should decelerate. This shows the controller delivering a first type (sequence simulating ruts) and then a second type (signal to decelerate) sequentially, thereby providing information of the incoming message.).
Regarding claim 10, Marti discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the tactile signal operator selectively activates the one or more tactile sensation providers ([0032], [0053]: teaches that notification module 136 generates control signals to configure haptic output devices for a specific tactile sensation) from the matrix of the one or more tactile sensation providers ([0034]: describes arrays (matrices) of ultrasonic transducers that can be selectively controlled) to provide the selected type of the tactile signal in response to the information of the incoming message ([0032], [0069]–[0070]: discloses that the controller (notification module 136) configures the haptic devices based on event data corresponding to incoming conditions/messages to produce the chosen tactile signal).
Claims 11-12, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being anticipated by Marti (US 2019/0276051 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claims 1-2, 4 and 8-10 above. Claims 11-12, 14 and 18-20 are directed to a method reciting steps/functions corresponding to the system features of claims 1-2, 4 and 8-10, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Marti that render claims 1-2, 4 and 8-10 anticipated likewise apply to claims 11-12, 14 and 18-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 5-7, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (US 2019/0276051 A1) in view Roselier (US 2012/0299905 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Marti discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the selected type of the tactile signal is applied to a display device in the vehicle to provide the information of an incoming message. Specifically, Marti discloses a system for providing information of an incoming message using tactile signals, including a controller that selects a type of tactile signal depending on incoming information and a tactile operator that generates the tactile output (Fig. 1; [0018]-[0023], [0032], [0069]-[0070]). Marti further discloses generating haptic sensations at user interface areas, such as proximate to the driver’s hands, steering wheel, or infotainment console, with ultrasonic arrays arranged in matrices to deliver tactile sensations in specific interaction areas (Figs. 2A–2D; [0023], [0034], [0041]-[0042]). However, Marti does not expressly disclose applying the tactile signals specifically to a “display device” of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti’s haptic operator to incorporate Roselier’s display-based tactile actuators. Both Marti and Roselier are directed to tactile/haptic human-machine interfaces in the vehicle environment, and Roselier expressly teaches applying tactile signals through a display device using an array of actuators ([0012]-[0013], [0016]–[0018], [0081]). Roselier further identifies applications such as Braille screens and human–machine interfaces in the automobile sector ([0081]), which demonstrate the use of tactile displays as an alternative output modality. The combination represents the predictable use of known components in the same field, motivated by Roselier’s disclosure that such actuators provide robustness, energy efficiency, and an alternative tactile mode of communication. The result would have been Marti’s system providing incoming messages via tactile signals applied to a display device, as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Marti discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the tactile signal operator further includes a magnetic field generator for applying a magnetic field to the tactile unit; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Roselier teaches a magnetic field generator (electromagnet coil 28; optional permanent magnet 24) arranged to generate a controlled magnetic field (B2) in a passage of an actuator cell filled with MR fluid, which deforms the movable element (membrane 36 / piston 36′) to produce tactile output (Abstract, [0010]-[0012], [0036]–[0037], [0042]-[0049], [0051]-[0056], [0058]-[0063]). Roselier further teaches arrays/matrices of these cells for a tactile display ([0022], [0064]-[0065], [0071]-[0076]) with per-cell electromagnet control ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the haptic operator of Marti to include a magnetic field generator as taught by Roselier. Roselier discloses a tactile actuator comprising magnetorheological fluid and an electromagnet coil arranged to generate a controlled magnetic field that deforms a membrane or piston to provide tactile feedback (see Abstract; [0010]-[0012], [0036]-[0037], [0042]-[0049]). Roselier further teaches that such actuators operate at lower voltage, consume less power by primarily using energy during state changes, and provide a robust and simple construction ([0012]-[0013], [0016]-[0018], [0056]). Roselier also identifies applications in human–machine interfaces in the automobile sector ([0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Roselier’s magnetic-field actuator into Marti’s system in order to obtain a vehicle haptic notification system with predictable improvements in efficiency and robustness.
Regarding claim 6, Marti in view of Roselier discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the tactile unit is connected to the one or more tactile sensation providers to provide a tactile sensation as the selected type of the tactile signal (Marti [0023], [0034]: teaches a tactile operator comprising arrays of haptic actuators (e.g., ultrasonic transducers, air vortex generators, pneumatic devices) configured to generate haptic sensations in response to control signals selected by the controller. Roselier [0022], [0064]-[0065], [0071]-[0076], [0079]: teaches tactile units (magnetorheological fluid cells with deformable membranes or pistons) arranged in a matrix and connected to individual electromagnetic coils for actuation. Each unit, when actuated by the magnetic field generator, produces a tactile sensation.).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Marti in view of Roselier discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the tactile sensation provider controls at least one of a degree, a direction, and a frequency of the tactile sensation (Marti [0041]-[0042], [0053]: teaches that haptic output devices may be configured to vary the intensity (degree), position/direction, and frequency of a tactile sensation. Roselier [0042]-[0049]; [0051]-[0056]: teaches tactile units whose membrane/piston displacement can be regulated by adjusting the strength and timing of the magnetic field (B2) applied via the electromagnet coil).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 5.
Claims 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Marti (US 2019/0276051 A1) in view of Roselier (US 2012/0299905 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claims 3 and 5-7 above. Claims 13 and 15-17 are directed to a method reciting steps/functions corresponding to the system features of claims 3 and 5-7, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Marti in view of Roselier that render claims 3 and 5-7 obvious likewise apply to claims 13 and 15-17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Applicant's Argument Regarding the § 102 Rejection (Priority Date)
Applicant argues that Marti (US 2019/0276051 A1) does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) because Marti's effective filing date of July 22, 2016 is allegedly later than Applicant's effective filing date of July 28, 2014. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's bare assertion of entitlement to the 2014 Korean priority date is insufficient to overcome the rejection. Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120 is not automatic. It requires that the earlier-filed application(s) provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the specific claimed subject matter. See MPEP 211.05.
Applicant has not met this burden. Applicant's response recites the chain of priority applications but does not identify any specific passage, paragraph, figure, or claim in the Korean priority applications — or in any earlier U.S. application in the chain — that provides written description support for the vehicle-specific limitations recited throughout claims 1-20. The mere listing of a priority chain does not establish that the claimed subject matter was disclosed in those earlier filings.
Furthermore, a review of the present specification of record — which represents the disclosure carried through the entire divisional and continuation chain — reveals that the vehicle-specific limitations of the pending claims are not adequately supported. Specifically:
First, not a single one of the seventeen (17) drawing sheets of record depicts a vehicle, vehicle interior, vehicle display device, vehicle dashboard, steering wheel, or any other vehicle-specific component or environment. As discussed above, the drawings are being objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) precisely because all seventeen figures exclusively illustrate wearable device embodiments, most prominently a wristwatch or bracelet configuration. The complete absence of any vehicle embodiment from the drawings is strong evidence that the inventor was not in possession of the claimed vehicle-specific invention at the time of the original filing. See MPEP 2163.
Second, the vehicle context appears only once in the entire specification, in a single clause of paragraph [0100], where it is listed as one of many potential application domains alongside IT devices, touchscreens, online games, pulsimeters, and surgical robots. The Technical Field ([0002]), Background Art ([0003]-[0005]), Technical Problem ([0006]-[0007]), Technical Solution ([0008]), and Advantageous Effects ([0009]-[0010]) sections contain no reference to vehicles whatsoever. A single passing reference to potential vehicle applications, appearing in a laundry list of possible uses at the end of the specification, is insufficient to provide written description support for claims that are structurally and functionally directed entirely to a vehicle-based system. See MPEP 2163.
Third, the vehicle-specific limitations in the pending claims are not merely field-of-use recitations. They are structural and functional limitations that define the operational context of the entire claimed system and method. For example, independent claim 1 requires "a system for providing a vehicle with information," with a receiver that receives the incoming message "at the vehicle," and a tactile signal operator that provides information "in the vehicle." Dependent claim 2 further requires that the incoming message comprise "driver assistance information, vehicle warning information, and vehicle condition information." Dependent claim 3 requires the tactile signal to be applied to "a display device in the vehicle." None of these vehicle-specific structural and functional limitations find adequate support in the specification beyond the single passing reference at [0100].
Fourth, the title of the present application — "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING A VEHICLE WITH INFORMATION OF AN INCOMING MESSAGE USING A TACTILE SIGNAL" — is entirely vehicle-centric, yet this vehicle-centric framing is conspicuously absent from the specification's own description of the technical field and invention, which describes the invention simply as a "tactile information supply module" for use with wearable devices. This inconsistency is further indicative that the vehicle-specific claim scope was introduced during continuation prosecution without commensurate written description support in the original disclosure.
Accordingly, because Applicant has not demonstrated — and the specification does not support — that the vehicle-specific limitations of claims 1-20 were adequately disclosed in the Korean priority applications or in any earlier application in the priority chain, Applicant is not entitled to the claimed 2014 priority date for those limitations. Marti, with an effective filing date of July 22, 2016, therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), and the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14, and 18-20 is hereby maintained.
Response to Applicant's Argument Regarding the § 103 Rejection
Applicant's sole argument against the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 13, and 15-17 is derivative of the priority date argument — namely, that because Marti allegedly does not qualify as prior art, the obviousness combination must also fail. Applicant presents no independent argument regarding the substantive patentability of these claims over Marti in view of Roselier, and makes no attempt to distinguish the specific disclosures of either reference from the claimed subject matter.
Because the priority date argument has been found unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, this derivative argument is likewise not persuasive. Marti remains prior art under § 102(a)(2), and the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 13, and 15-17 over Marti in view of Roselier is hereby maintained for all the reasons set forth in the Office Action and herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685