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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
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 “fixed part” , the “installation frame”, the “controller”, the “displacement sensor”, and the “power supply module” 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 § 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.
Claims 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " wherein a first of the stator and the mover comprises a flat coil, and a second of the stator and the mover comprises a magnetic structure " in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear based on this claim language whether Applicant is referring to both the stator and the mover as each comprising a flat coil and each comprising a magnetic structure. Furthermore, based on the specification, both the mover (42 according to spec) and the flat coil (421) are the same structure so it is unclear how mover can comprise a flat coil if the mover is also the flat coil. Similarly, the specification alludes to the stator (41) as being the magnetic structure so it is unclear how the stator comprises of a magnetic structure if the stator is also the magnetic structure. Additionally, the wording of ‘a first’ and ‘a second’ contributes to claim unclarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4, and 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 113363100 A) in view of Gao (CN113937975A).
Claim 1
Mao teaches: A force feedback apparatus (100), comprising: a casing (50); an operation part (20), movably provided in the casing (50); a fixed part (10); and a linear driving assembly (30, 40), comprising a stator (43) fixedly provided inside the casing (50) and a mover (41) movably provided inside the casing (50) along a moving direction of the operation part (20), wherein the mover (41) is fixed to the fixed part (10), the fixed part (10) is connected to the operation part (20), wherein a first of the stator (43) and the mover (41) comprises a flat coil (431), and a second of the stator (43) and the mover (41) comprises a magnetic structure (411),
PNG
media_image1.png
692
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mao does not explicitly disclose however that: the magnetic structure is adapted to generate a magnetic field with the flat coil located therewithin.
The concept of designing a feedback system similar to that of Mao wherein a flat coil is located within the magnetic field of magnets is a well-known phenomenon. Gao for example, teaches a force-feedback/vibration device comprising a vibrator assembly (10) including a first magnet (13) and a second magnet (14), and a stator assembly (20) including a coil (21), wherein the coil (21) is positioned between the first magnet (13) and a second magnet (14). Gao further teaches that the coil (21) is located within the magnetic field generated by the magnets and cuts the magnetic field lines between the first magnet (13) and the second magnet (14) to generate electromagnetic driving force (see Fig. 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
374
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the force feedback apparatus of Mao to be configured such that a flat coil is positioned within the magnetic field generated by magnetic structures as taught by Gao. Such a modification would have predictably increased utilization of magnetic flux, improved electromagnetic coupling between the coil and magnetic structure, increased driving force output, and enhanced force-feedback performance, as expressly taught by Gao. The modification merely represents the use of a known arrangement of magnets and coils to improve the efficiency of an electromagnetic actuator and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 2/1
Mao as modified by Gao teaches: The force feedback apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the stator (43) comprising the magnetic structure (411), and the mover (41) comprising the flat coil (431); and the magnetic structure (411) comprising a magnet group (13 and 14 of Gao), the magnet group (13 and 14 of Gao) comprising two magnets (13, 14; Gao) with a magnetic gap formed therebetween, and the flat coil (21; Gao) provided in the magnetic gap.
Claim 3/2/1
Mao as modified by Gao teaches: The force feedback apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: there are provided at least two magnet groups (13 and 14 of Gao). each comprising two magnets (15 and 16 for example, see Gao’s Fig. 4) with a magnetic gap formed therebetween, arranged in the moving direction, wherein magnets (15 and 16 for example, see Gao’s Fig. 4) located on the same side of the magnetic gaps of the two magnet groups (13 and 14 of Gao) having opposite magnetization directions, so that the magnetic gaps corresponding to the two magnet group (13 and 14 of Gao)s have opposite magnetic field directions (as illustrated in Fig. 4); and two edges of the flat coil (21) oppositely provided in the moving direction of the operation part (20) are respectively located in the magnetic gaps corresponding to the two magnet groups (13 and 14 of Gao as illustrated in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
572
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4/1
Mao as modified by Gao teaches: The force feedback apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the casing (50) comprising multiple side parts, the multiple side parts enclosing an installation channel (through 60 and 70) extending along the moving direction of the operation part (20), the multiple side parts comprising a first side part and a second side part that are oppositely provided, the operation part (20) slidably provided in the installation channel (through 60 and 70) along the moving direction of the operation part (20); and the magnetic structure (411) and the flat coil (431) are layered between the first side part and the second side part.
Claim 7/1
Mao as modified by Gao teaches: The force feedback apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the casing (50) comprises a yoke corresponding to the magnetic structure (411).
Claim 9/1
Mao as modified by Gao teaches: The force feedback apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising a restoration member (magnetic spring as evidenced by Fig. 2-4), configured to act together with the mover (41) on the operation part (20) when the operation part (20) is in motion.
PNG
media_image5.png
516
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
520
496
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
522
496
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 10
Mao as modified by Gao teaches: An electronic device (electronic device, see technical field description), comprising: a force feedback apparatus (100) according to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao as modified by Gao in view of Qiu (US 20050082994 A1).
Claim 8/1
Mao as modified by Gao teaches: The force feedback apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: further comprising a controller, a displacement sensor, and a power supply module, the displacement sensor configured to detect a displacement signal of the operation part, the controller electrically connected to the displacement sensor and the power supply module, to control a current magnitude and a current direction of the power supply module according to the displacement signal.
Qui conversely teaches that monitoring displacement and adjusting motor drive current in response thereto allows more accurate regulation of electromagnetic force (see para. 0111). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the closed-loop control system of Qiu into the force-feedback apparatus of Mao as modified by Gao. Applying the known control strategy of Qiu to the force-feedback actuator of Mao as modified by Gao would have predictably improved precision of actuator positioning, force output, responsiveness, and tactile feedback while using known control techniques for similar electromagnetic linear actuators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5/4/1
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for claim 5, Mao as modified by Gao teaches: The force feedback apparatus according to claim 4;
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in obvious combination, inter alia:
The force feedback apparatus further comprising an installation frame, the installation frame slidably provided in the installation channel along the moving direction of the operation part so as to have a first end outside the installation channel and a second end inside the installation channel, the first end connected to the operation part, and the second end having an installation groove configured to accommodate the mover.
Claims 6 would be allowable over all prior art based on their virtue of depending on claim 5.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
/AHMED F SECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights