Notice of Allowance
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Double Patenting
Legal Basis
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US Patent 11,687,161 and US Patent 11,054,910.
The following tables illustrates the correspondence between claim 10 of this Application and claim 1 of US Patent 11,687,161 (the ‘161 Patent) and claims 1 and 5 of US Patent 11,054,910 (the ‘910 Patent).
This Application
11,687,161
“10. A system comprising:
“1. A system for creating mid-air tactile stimulation, the system comprising:
“a haptic stimulation device comprising a plurality of ultrasound transducers;
“a tactile stimulation device comprising a set of multiple ultrasound transducers…
“a processing subsystem configured to determine a set of groupings,
“wherein each grouping comprises a subset of the plurality of ultrasound transducers,
“wherein determining the set of groupings comprises maximizing a distance between the transducers of each respective grouping; and
“[the set of multiple ultrasound transducers] organized into a set of multiple groupings,
“wherein a first set of distances between the transducers within each grouping is maximized;
“a processing subsystem comprising:
“a dual memory architecture, wherein the dual memory architecture comprises:
“a first memory; and
“a second memory;
“a control subsystem communicatively coupled to the processing subsystem, wherein the control subsystem is configured to broadcast a set of control signals to each grouping of the set of groupings.”
“a control subsystem comprising a transition controller, wherein the transition controller produces a transition signal in response to a trigger, wherein in response to the transition signal, the processing subsystem transmits information from the first memory to the second memory; and
“a driver subsystem in communication with the control subsystem and the set of multiple ultrasound transducers, wherein the driver subsystem implements the second memory at the set of multiple transducers.
Table 1
This Application
11,054,910
“10. A system comprising:
1. A system for creating and adjusting mid-air tactile stimulation, the method [sic, system] comprising:
“a haptic stimulation device comprising a plurality of ultrasound transducers;
“a tactile stimulation device, the tactile stimulation device comprising:
“a processing subsystem configured to determine a set of groupings,
“wherein each grouping comprises a subset of the plurality of ultrasound transducers,
“wherein determining the set of groupings comprises maximizing a distance between the transducers of each respective grouping; and
“a set of multiple ultrasound transducers organized into a set of groups, wherein each of the set of groups is determined based on a nearest neighbors algorithm,
“the set of groups comprising:
“a first group of ultrasound transducers;
“a second group of ultrasound transducers;
“a processing subsystem comprising:
“a group control module, wherein the group control module functions to determine and implement a sequential order associated with the set of groups; and
“a dual memory architecture, wherein the dual memory architecture comprises:
“a staging memory, wherein the staging memory comprises a first set of waveform parameters associated with a set of new signals;
“an output memory, wherein the output memory comprises a second set of waveform parameters associated with a current set of signals;
5. The system of Claim 1, wherein the nearest neighbors algorithm is configured to maximize an average distance between adjacent transducers within each group of the set of groups.
“a control subsystem communicatively coupled to the processing subsystem, wherein the control subsystem is configured to broadcast a set of control signals to each grouping of the set of groupings.”
“[1.] a control subsystem comprising a transition controller, wherein the transition controller produces a transition signal in response to a trigger, wherein in response to the transition signal, the processing subsystem copies over at least a portion of the first set of waveform parameters into the output memory;
“a driver subsystem in communication with the control subsystem and the set of multiple ultrasound transducers, wherein the driver subsystem implements the output memory at the set of multiple transducers.
Table 2
The conflicting claims are not identical with this Application’s claims, as they differ in minor ways. First, while the conflicting claims require determining the grouping in order to maximize a distance between them, they do not tie the determining to a processing subsystem. However, implementing this crucial element of the claims with an existing processing device is plainly obvious since one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected a processing device as being capable of performing numerous types of algorithms, including the nearest algorithm described in the conflicting claims.
Second, the conflicting claims include a control subsystem and drive subsystem. The conflicting claims do not characterize the control subsystem as broadcasting control signals to each grouping. However, that is merely a broad summary of the actions performed by the subsystem and drive subsystem. In particular, the control subsystem copies or transmits waveform parameters, or control signals, to an output memory that is plainly intended to drive the transducers of each group. For the foregoing reasons, claim 10 of this Application is not patentably distinct from the claims of the ‘161 and ‘910 patents.
Summary
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–9 are allowed. Claims 1 is independent. Claims 2–9 depend on claim 1, and are allowable for the same reasons.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
Claim 1
1. A method for creating mid-air tactile stimulation at a haptic stimulation device comprising a plurality of ultrasound transducers, the method comprising:
“at a processing subsystem of the haptic stimulation device:
“generating a first set of control signals with a first phase value; and
“generating a second set of control signals with a second phase value, different from the first phase value; and
“at a control subsystem communicatively coupled to the processing subsystem:
“receiving the first set of control signals and the second set of control signals from the processing subsystem; and
“transitioning a drive signal for a subset of the plurality of ultrasound transducers from the first set of control signals to the second set of control signals without setting the drive signal to an off state during the transition.”
Table 3
The key distinction between this claim and the cited prior art is transitioning a drive signal for a subset of the plurality of ultrasound transducer from the first set of control signals to the second set of control signals without setting the drive signal to an off state during the transition. This is seen in the Spec. at FIG.5 (top plot demonstrating the transition to a new signal without turning the drive signal off). This differs from the prior art. The Hong reference (US 2014/0071067), for example, describes transitioning haptic effects during sequential blanking intervals, with the haptic drive signal being off for an extend period between transitions. Hong at ¶ 98, FIG.3. For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 and its dependents are allowable.
Claims 11–20 are objected to for reciting allowable subject matter while depending on rejected base claim 10. The claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of base claim 10 and any and all intervening claims.
Claim 10, from which claims 11–20 depend, is reproduced below:
Claim 10
“10. A system comprising:
“a haptic stimulation device comprising a plurality of ultrasound transducers;
“a processing subsystem configured to determine a set of groupings, wherein each grouping comprises a subset of the plurality of ultrasound transducers, wherein determining the set of groupings comprises maximizing a distance between the transducers of each respective grouping; and
“a control subsystem communicatively coupled to the processing subsystem, wherein the control subsystem is configured to broadcast a set of control signals to each grouping of the set of groupings.”
Table 4
The defining feature here is determining a set of groupings, where each grouping comprises a subset of the plurality of ultrasound transducers wherein determining the set of groupings comprises maximizing a distance between the transducers of each respective grouping. In other words, the transducers are grouped for activation into several groups. Each grouping is formed so the transducers in each group are maximally spaced. This differs from the Kappus reference (US 2019/0197840), which instead groups transducers closely in order to create a haptic effect proximate to a control point. Kappus at ¶¶ 151, 153, 309, 327. For these reasons, claims 11–20 include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
3/26/2026