DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 10/18/2024.
Claims 1-19 and 26 are pending. Claims 20-25, 27 and 28 are canceled and all pending claims amended by preliminary amendment.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danieau, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0236101 (“Danieau”).
With regard to Claim 1, Danieau teaches a method comprising:
obtaining haptic data representative of a haptic feedback, the haptic data comprising a haptic signal to render the haptic feedback and information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback ([0055] describes that parameters controlling displacement of a feedback device for haptic feedback can be obtained, including whether an objective of a particular displacement is a washout),
when the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback indicates that the haptic signal feedback is a washout effect, adapting the haptic signal to remain below a perception threshold ([0054] describes that the speed value of a body part affected by the feedback generated by the signal can be compared to a speed threshold. [0055] describes that when the objective is a washout, if the comparison determines that a user will perceive the displacement, parameters of the control signal for the feedback device can be adjusted, such as by decreasing the amplitude and/or acceleration of the displacement.), and
providing the adapted haptic signal ([0050] describes that this adjustment is performed for controlling a force feedback device being used in a motion simulator).
Claim 13 recites a device comprising a processor (Fig. 5) which carries out the method of Claim 1, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claim 26 recites a medium comprising program code instructions (Fig. 5) for implementing the method of Claim 1 when executed by a processor (Fig. 5).
With regard to Claim 5, Danieau teaches that the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is represented by an enumerated value. [0038]-[0039] describe that various parameters for a haptic effect, including a washout, specify coordinates and values such as displacement and acceleration.
Claim 17 recites a device comprising a processor (Fig. 5) which carries out the method of Claim 5, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Danieau teaches a method, comprising: encoding haptic data representative of a haptic feedback, the haptic data comprising a haptic signal to render the haptic feedback and information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback, and providing the encoded haptic data. [0052]-[0053] describe that a motion can be encoded into a set of parameters. [0055] describe that a washout can be encoded into parameters, and potentially modified as needed.
Claim 19 recites a device comprising a processor (Fig. 5) which carries out the method of Claim 7, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 11, Danieau teaches that the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is represented by an enumerated value. [0038]-[0039] describe that various parameters for a haptic effect, including a washout, specify coordinates and values such as displacement and acceleration.
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 2, 3, 8, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danieau, in view of Luden, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0128306 (“Luden”).
With regard to Claim 2, Danieau, in view of Luden teaches that the haptic signal is carried over frequency bands, a frequency band being represented by haptic data allowing to reconstruct a part of the signal corresponding to a selected range of frequencies, wherein the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is associated with a frequency band and applies to the associated frequency band.
Danieau teaches at [0055] that a haptic rendering adapter receives the washout signal and parameters, which are adapted to ensure the washout is not perceived by the user. Luden teaches at [0025]-[0027] that a haptic signal is generated by a haptic event, which the signal represents. The haptic signal is transmitted with an audio and visual signal, where the haptic signal can be recovered by frequency separation or filtering, thereby reconstructing the haptic signal by accessing the signal carried at a particular frequency band.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Danieau with Luden. Luden describes at [0006] that the transmission of haptic signals allows for a more realistic reproduction of a remote event for viewers. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Luden with Danieau, to improve user experience by enabling the use of haptic feedback and washout signals with remotely viewed content, to enhance the enjoyment and realism of audiovisual content.
Claim 14 recites a device comprising a processor (Fig. 5) which carries out the method of Claim 2, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Danieau, in view of Luden teaches that the haptic signal is carried over frequency bands, a frequency band being represented by haptic data allowing to reconstruct a part of the signal corresponding to a selected range of frequencies, wherein the part of the signal is further split temporally in a set of haptic effects and wherein information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is associated with a haptic effect and applies to the associated haptic effect.
Danieau teaches at [0055] that a haptic rendering adapter receives the washout signal and parameters, which are adapted to ensure the washout is not perceived by the user. Luden teaches at [0024]-[0027] that a haptic signal is generated by multiple haptic events, which the signal represents. The haptic signal is transmitted with an audio and visual signal, where the haptic signal can be recovered by frequency separation or filtering, thereby reconstructing the haptic signal by accessing the signal carried at a particular frequency band. The haptic signal is synced using video metasync technology, to ensure reproduction timing matches with the timing of audio and video streams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Danieau with Luden. Luden describes at [0006] that the transmission of haptic signals allows for a more realistic reproduction of a remote event for viewers. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Luden with Danieau, to improve user experience by enabling the use of haptic feedback and washout signals with remotely viewed content, to enhance the enjoyment and realism of audiovisual content.
Claim 15 recites a device comprising a processor (Fig. 5) which carries out the method of Claim 3, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Danieau, in view of Luden teaches that the haptic signal is carried over frequency bands, a frequency band being represented by haptic data allowing to reconstruct a part of the signal corresponding to a selected range of frequencies, wherein the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is associated with a frequency band and applies to the associated frequency band.
Danieau teaches at [0055] that a haptic rendering adapter receives the washout signal and parameters, which are adapted to ensure the washout is not perceived by the user. Luden teaches at [0025]-[0027] that a haptic signal is generated by a haptic event, which the signal represents. The haptic signal is transmitted with an audio and visual signal, where the haptic signal can be recovered by frequency separation or filtering, thereby reconstructing the haptic signal by accessing the signal carried at a particular frequency band.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Danieau with Luden. Luden describes at [0006] that the transmission of haptic signals allows for a more realistic reproduction of a remote event for viewers. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Luden with Danieau, to improve user experience by enabling the use of haptic feedback and washout signals with remotely viewed content, to enhance the enjoyment and realism of audiovisual content.
With regard to Claim 9, Danieau, in view of Luden teaches that the haptic signal is carried over frequency bands, a frequency band being represented by haptic data allowing to reconstruct a part of the signal corresponding to a selected range of frequencies, wherein the part of the signal is further split temporally in a set of haptic effects and wherein information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is associated with a haptic effect and applies to the associated haptic effect.
Danieau teaches at [0055] that a haptic rendering adapter receives the washout signal and parameters, which are adapted to ensure the washout is not perceived by the user. Luden teaches at [0024]-[0027] that a haptic signal is generated by multiple haptic events, which the signal represents. The haptic signal is transmitted with an audio and visual signal, where the haptic signal can be recovered by frequency separation or filtering, thereby reconstructing the haptic signal by accessing the signal carried at a particular frequency band. The haptic signal is synced using video metasync technology, to ensure reproduction timing matches with the timing of audio and video streams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Danieau with Luden. Luden describes at [0006] that the transmission of haptic signals allows for a more realistic reproduction of a remote event for viewers. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Luden with Danieau, to improve user experience by enabling the use of haptic feedback and washout signals with remotely viewed content, to enhance the enjoyment and realism of audiovisual content.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danieau, in view of Doyen, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0024979 (“Doyen”).
With regard to Claim 4, Doyen teaches that the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is represented by a Boolean flag. [0053] describes that the system determines whether it is true or false that a washout flag is present in a rendering device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Doyen with Danieau. The background of Doyen describes several problems in the prior art that the system attempts to solve. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by improving the rendering of haptic effects for end users, including the use of washouts.
Claim 16 recites a device comprising a processor (Fig. 5) which carries out the method of Claim 4, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Doyen teaches that the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is represented by a Boolean flag. [0053] describes that the system determines whether it is true or false that a washout flag is present in a rendering device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Doyen with Danieau. The background of Doyen describes several problems in the prior art that the system attempts to solve. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by improving the rendering of haptic effects for end users, including the use of washouts.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danieau, in view of Wade, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0383400 (“Wade”).
With regard to Claim 6, Danieau, in view of Wade teaches that the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is represented using a JSON syntax based on a graphics language transmission format specification. Danieau teaches haptic feedback including a washout, as described above. Wade teaches at [0105]-[0106] that a model of an object can include haptic feedback, where the model data can be represented in a GLTF format. One of skill in the art would understand that GLTF stores data primarily using JSON notation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Danieau with Wade. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of content to employ washouts in providing haptic feedback, such as the interaction with a 3D model described in Wade.
Claim 18 recites a device comprising a processor (Fig. 5) which carries out the method of Claim 6, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 12, Danieau, in view of Wade teaches that the information representative of a washout effect for the haptic feedback is represented using a JSON syntax based on a graphics language transmission format specification. Danieau teaches haptic feedback including a washout, as described above. Wade teaches at [0105]-[0106] that a model of an object can include haptic feedback, where the model data can be represented in a GLTF format. One of skill in the art would understand that GLTF stores data primarily using JSON notation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Danieau with Wade. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of content to employ washouts in providing haptic feedback, such as the interaction with a 3D model described in Wade.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
7/30/2026
Prosecution Insights