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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 2A-2E should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. According to p. 8-10 of the specification of the instant application, SHO, SHT and taxel-based methods referring to the Figures 2A-2E are being described as known in the art methods. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claims 1-2 and 12 are objected to because of the limitations “information representative of the haptic effect comprising a haptic texture” and “data of the haptic texture”. As best understood by the examiner, the “information” and the “data” of these limitations are referring to the same claimed subject matter. It is suggested to use the same terminology to refer to the same claimed subject matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the limitation “wherein data of the haptic texture”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “wherein the data of the haptic texture”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the limitation “wherein selecting a haptic signal”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “wherein selecting the haptic signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to a computer program, which is directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
In order to claim a computer program, the program needs to be stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, and the program needs to be executed by a processor, for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cruz (CN 106125973 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 24-26, Cruz discloses a method (e.g. Abstract) for decoding a haptic effect, a computer program, a device (e.g. Fig. 1A & p. 5) for decoding a haptic effect comprising a processor (e.g. Fig. 1A: 102) configured to perform the method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g. Fig. 1A: 104) comprising program code instructions for implementing the method, comprising,
obtaining information representative of the haptic effect comprising a haptic texture (e.g. p.6 & 8: determine haptic effect associated with position of touch of a touch area and generate haptic feedback accordingly;) and additional information (e.g. p. 6 & 8: whether GUI feature at the position of touch; Figs: 2A-2B indicate some area of the touch screen associate with corresponding haptic effect and some don’t),
when the additional information corresponds to a first value (e.g. p. 8: no GUI feature), providing data of the haptic texture to haptic actuators (e.g. p. 6: area corresponds to boundary), and
when the additional information corresponds to a second value (e.g. p. 8: GUI feature associated with position of touch), selecting a haptic signal from a set of haptic signals based on a value of a taxel of the haptic texture (e.g. p. 7-8: GUI feature associated haptic effect could be corresponds to “button” or “fur”, for example, with specifies command parameters such as voltage/current amplitude and frequency to simulate different texture and/or friction change) and providing data of the selected haptic signal to the haptic actuators (e.g. p. 8: sending command to actuators to simulate the selected haptic texture).
Regarding claim 2, Cruz discloses the first value of the additional information indicates that the haptic texture is to be interpreted as a direct texture rendering (e.g. p. 6 & 8 and Figs. 2A-2B: no GUI feature, position of touch indicate whether associated haptic effect presence) and wherein data of the haptic texture is provided based on a position of an element representing a user with regard to the texture (e.g. p. 7-8: GUI feature associated haptic effect could be corresponds to “button”, i.e. a position of an element).
Regarding claim 3, Cruz discloses the second value of the additional information indicates that the haptic texture is to be interpreted as comprising references to haptic signals and wherein selecting a haptic signal is performed based on a position of an element representing a user with regard to the texture (e.g. p. 7-8: GUI feature associated haptic effect could be corresponds to “button”, i.e. a position of an element).
Regarding claim 4, Cruz discloses the haptic signal is rendered according to a velocity of an element representing the user (e.g. p. 4 & 8: speed or velocity).
Regarding claim 5, Cruz discloses the additional information is a Boolean value (e.g. p. 6 & 8: determination of whether GUI feature at the position of touch is broadly interpreted as true or false Boolean value to the processor).
Regarding claim 6, Cruz discloses the first value of the additional information is FALSE, and the second value of the additional information is TRUE (e.g. p. 6 & 8: determination of whether GUI feature at the position of touch is broadly interpreted as true or false Boolean value to the processor).
Regarding claim 7, Cruz discloses the additional information is an enumerated value coded as an integer value or a string value (e.g. p. 8: bitmap comparison to determine haptic effect at position of touch implies the use of coded value).
Regarding claim 8, Cruz discloses the enumerated value further determines a bit depth of the texture (e.g. p. 8: bitmap).
Regarding claim 9, Cruz discloses the enumerated value further determines a range of the haptic effect (e.g. p. 7-8: haptic effect simulated based on variation of voltage amplitude and frequency, 0-60% PWM amplitude within -80 and +80 volts).
Regarding claim 10, Cruz discloses a set of haptic textures and associated additional information (e.g. p. 5 & 7-8: GUI feature associated haptic effect could be corresponds to “button” or “fur”, for example, with specifies command parameters such as voltage/current amplitude and frequency to simulate different texture and/or friction change).
Regarding claim 24, Cruz discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising encoded data (e.g. Fig. 1A: 104 & p. 5) comprising information representative of a haptic effect comprising a haptic texture and additional information indicating whether the haptic texture is to be interpreted as a direct texture rendering or as a reference to a haptic signal (no patentable weight given since information stored within encoded data does not further limit the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium. The claim is broadly interpreted as a storage medium for storing encoded data).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz (CN 106125973 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) in view of Vonikakis (US 10,359855 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Cruz fails to disclose, but Vonikakis teaches selecting a texture resolution amongst a plurality of texture resolutions (e.g. col 10 lines 6-29: adjustable haptic resolutions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cruz with teachings of Vonikakis to adjust resolution of haptic effect as needed so as to accurately effectively mimic/simulate a desired haptic feedback.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3963. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688