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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: suggest to amend claim 4 to be dependent from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-10, 12 and 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 26, Cruz discloses a method (e.g. Abstract) for decoding a haptic effect, 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 memory (e.g. Fig. 1A: 104) comprising program code instructions for implementing the method, comprising,
Obtaining an immersive scene description data structure 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 a metadata field containing 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) determining how to interpret haptic textures,
when the metadata field containing additional information corresponds to a first value (e.g. p. 8: no GUI feature) indicating that the haptic texture is to be interpreted as a direct texture rendering (e.g. p. 6 & 8 and Figs. 2A-2B: position of touch indicates whether associated haptic effect presence), providing data of the haptic texture to haptic actuators (e.g. p. 6: area corresponds to boundary) based on a position of an element representing a user with regards 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), and
when the metadata field containing additional information corresponds to a second value (e.g. p. 8: GUI feature associated with position of touch) indicating that the haptic texture is to be interpreted as comprising references to haptic signals, selecting a haptic signal from a set of haptic signals based on a value of a pixel (e.g. p. 8: pixel coordinate) 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 the pixel being determined 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) 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 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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to claim regarding Cruz, Cruz at least in p. 6-8 discloses an invention directed to adjusting haptic feedback based on pixel coordinate of a touch position to provide corresponding feedback.
In addition, claims 4-12 and 26 are unpatentable in view of foregoing reasons and rejections set forth in current Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights