DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed December 9, 2024 via preliminary amendment. Claims 1-14 are currently pending, of which claims 1-14 are currently amended.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at Step 1 the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method/process). At Step 2A, Prong 1, the abstract ideas have been identified in the reproduced claim language below:
A method of signaling, into a container, a mapping between a haptic effect and at least a body part of a human body targeted by said haptic effect, called targeted body part, said human body being represented with a body model (mental process – evaluation and judgment), the body model including a first plurality of body parts and a second plurality of groups of body parts, each group of said second plurality comprising at least a body part of said first plurality(mental process – evaluation and judgment), the method comprising: writing, into said container, first data identifying said targeted body part with reference to at least one group of said second plurality said targeted body part belongs to (mental process – evaluation and judgment).
That is, the process does not require any specific computer and the mapping is cited at a very high level of generality that these mappings could reasonably be performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A user could certainly decide how to map body parts for certain effects. The structure of the container could merely be whatever the user writes down on a piece of paper.
At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 2, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of encoding signals (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s). Encoding and decoding signals is a court-identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05; see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.
As per claim 3, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of identifying data (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 4, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of logical evaluations (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 5, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of logical evaluators and evaluations (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 6, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of data recording with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation, evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 7, the claim is directed to similar subject matter as claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. The claim is directed to parsing and reading the data instead of signaling and writing the data. A user could certainly read how body parts are mapped to certain effects. The structure of the container could merely be whatever the user writes down on a piece of paper. At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
Claims 8-12 are directed to similar subject matter as claims 2-6, respectively. Similar to claim 7, claims 8-12 are directed to parsing and reading the data instead of signaling and writing the data. The analysis remains the same as claims 2-6 above. At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 13, the claim is directed to an apparatus that implements the same features as the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s). Specifically, the hardware components claims are merely general computer components and an “apply it” scenario. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to an apparatus that implements the same features as the method of claim 7, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s). Specifically, the hardware components claims are merely general computer components and an “apply it” scenario. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleureau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0156639; hereinafter, “Fleureau”; retrieved from IDS filed December 9, 2024).
As per claim 1, Fleureau further teaches a method of signaling, into a container, a mapping between a haptic effect and at least a body part of a human body targeted by said haptic effect, called targeted body part, said human body being represented with a body model (See Fleureau Fig. 1 and paras. [0036-37] and [0055]: encoding strategy for container of haptic data and mapping the haptic data to body models), the body model including a first plurality of body parts and a second plurality of groups of body parts, each group of said second plurality comprising at least a body part of said first plurality (See Fleureau Fig. 9 and paras. [0055]: hierarchical representation of groups of body parts), the method comprising:
writing, into said container, first data identifying said targeted body part with reference to at least one group of said second plurality said targeted body part belongs to (See Fleureau Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. [0055-66]: encoding hierarchical identifiers of body parts, that can be mapped into 3D model).
As per claim 2, Fleureau further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: writing, into said container, second data identifying a side of said body model said targeted body part belongs to, said side being among right side and left side; and/or writing, into said container, third data identifying a face of said body model said targeted body part belongs to, said face being among front and back (See Fleureau Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. [0036] and [0055-66]: various body parts that can be written into the model, including left-side and right-side limbs as well as face identifiers).
As per claim 6, Fleureau further teaches the method according to one of claim 1, further comprising writing into said container fifth data representative of said haptic effect (See Fleureau Figs. 1, 4, and 11 and paras. [0031-32] and [0068]: haptic effects channel where there are different haptics such as vibration, temperature, pressure, etc.).
As per claim 7, Fleureau teaches a method of parsing, from a container, data representative of a mapping between a haptic effect and at least a body part of a human body targeted by said haptic effect, called targeted body part, said human body being represented with a body model (See Fleureau Fig. 1 and paras. [0036-37] and [0055]: encoding strategy for container of haptic data and mapping the haptic data to body models), said body model including a first plurality of body parts and a second plurality of groups of body parts, each group of said second plurality comprising at least a body part of said first plurality (See Fleureau Fig. 9 and paras. [0055]: hierarchical representation of groups of body parts), the method comprising: reading, from said container, first data identifying said targeted body part with reference to at least one group of said second plurality said targeted body part belongs to (See Fleureau Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. [0055-66]: decoding and reading hierarchical identifiers of body parts, that can be mapped into 3D model).
As per claim 8, Fleureau further teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising: reading, from said container, second data identifying a side of said body model said targeted body part belongs to, said side being among right side and left side; and/or reading, from said container, third data identifying a face of said body model said targeted body part belongs to, said face being among front and back (See Fleureau Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. [0036] and [0055-66]: various body parts that can be written into the model, including left-side and right-side limbs as well as face identifiers).
As per claim 12, Fleureau further teaches the method according to one of claim 7, further comprising reading, from said container, fifth data representative of said haptic effect (See Fleureau Figs. 1, 4, and 11 and paras. [0031-32] and [0068]: haptic effects channel where there are different haptics such as vibration, temperature, pressure, etc.).
As per claim 13, Fleureau teaches an apparatus of signaling, into a container, a mapping between a haptic effect and at least a body part of a human body targeted by said haptic effect, called targeted body part, wherein said apparatus comprising a memory associated with at least a processor configured to implement the method according to claim 1 (See Fleureau paras. [0069-75]).
As per claim 14, Fleureau further teaches an apparatus of parsing, from a container, data representative of a mapping between a haptic effect and at least a body part of a human body targeted by said haptic effect, called targeted body part, wherein said apparatus comprising a memory associated with at least a processor configured to implement the method according to claim 7 (See Fleureau paras. [0069-75]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleureau, as applied above, and further in view of Guillotel et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0367395; hereinafter, “Guillotel”).
As per claim 3, Fleureau teaches the method according to claim 1. However, while Fleureau teaches a hierarchical model of grouped body parts (See Fleureau Fig. 9 and para. [0056]), Fleureau does not explicitly teach identifiers for said groups and targeted body parts.
Guillotel teaches wherein said first data comprises a first identifier identifying said targeted body part and a second identifier identifying said at least one group of said second plurality said targeted body part belongs to (See Guillotel Figs. 6-10 and paras. [0102-104]: grouping body parts as well as having body_part_ID values. This binary mask allows for “a convenient way to combine multiple body parts. For example, the upper body corresponds to grouping the body parts with IDs 1 to 14. This combination is performed by a bitwise OR operation over the masks of the different body parts to get the corresponding mask value. Therefore, a binary mask of 000000000011111111111111 (0x003FFF in hex value) allows to easily group the body parts withs IDs 1 to 14 and thus represents the complete upper body”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the hierarchical groupings of Fleureau with the various identifiers of Guillotel. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose identifying body parts for haptic models, and Guillotel further enhances the identifications of Fleureau by efficiently implementing the hierarchy of Fleureau while also representing the various parts in an efficient manner and allows for efficient selection (See Guillotel paras. [0102] and [0104]).
As per claim 9, the claim is directed to a method that implements the same features as the method of claim 3, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleureau, as applied above, and further in view of Ferrari et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0095991; hereinafter, “Ferrari”).
As per claim 4, Fleureau teaches the method according to one of claim 1. However, while Fleureau teaches identifiers and hierarchical arrangements (See Fleureau Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. [0055-66]), Fleureau does not explicitly teach logical operators.
Ferrari teaches wherein, said first data comprises a third identifier identifying a logical operator (See Ferrari Figs. 11-12C and paras. [0105-107] and [0126]: various operator sets that can specify navigation states).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the hierarchical groupings and identifiers of Fleureau with the logical operators of Ferrari. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose hierarchical groupings of relationship data and mapping objects, and Ferrari further enhances the identifications of Fleureau by efficiently refining objects and reducing frustration for the user (See Ferrari para. [0015]).
As per claim 5, Fleureau/Ferrari teaches the method according to claim 4. Fleureau also teaches identifiers and hierarchical arrangements, including targeted body parts and excluded groupings of body parts (See Fleureau Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. [0055-66]: different nested body parts. For example the hand and associated fingers are not part of the lower limb grouping). However, Fleureau does not explicitly teach logical operators.
Ferrari teaches wherein, when said logical operator corresponds to a NOT, the method further comprising writing, into said container, fourth data identifying a body part excluded from said at least one group of said second plurality said targeted body part belongs to (See Ferrari Figs. 11-12C and paras. [0105-107] and [0126]: various operator sets that can specify navigation states, including a “NOT” operator, that can refine what objects are not part of a particular group. This would include the various body part features of Fleureau).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Fleureau with the teachings of Ferrari, for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 4.
As per claims 10 and 11, the claims are directed to a method that implements the same features as the method of claims 4 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
