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 .
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 angular sensor, gyroscope, and accelerometer 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: No. 116. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 7, Line 12: There appears to be an extra bracket at the end of the paragraph.
Paragraph 65, Line 15: There is an extra period at the end of the sentence.
Paragraph 79, Line 3: A word –be—is needed after the word “will”.
Paragraph 82, Line 7: There is an extra period at the end of this sentence.
Paragraph 88, Lines 1-2: The phrase “a predetermined haptic parameter values” should be replaced with either –predetermined haptic parameter values—or the phrase –a predetermined haptic parameter value--.
Paragraph 89, Line 4: The word “to” before “high” is not needed.
Paragraph 89, Lines 7-8: This sentence is a fragment.
Paragraph 112, Line 3: The word “to” before “high” is not needed.
Paragraph 123, Line 2: There is no computing device numbered “116” in Figure 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The acronym “GPI” in claim 1 does not match the term “graphic user interface”. The phrase “a predetermined haptic parameter values” found in claim 2 should be replaced with either –predetermined haptic parameter values—or the phrase –a predetermined haptic parameter value--. The word “to” before “high” in claim 10 is not needed. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al [US 2018/0321056].
For claim 1, the haptic navigation device (Title: haptic device; Abstract: aiding in navigation) configured to be communicatively coupled to a target (Paragraph 65: final destination) taught by Yoo includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed one or more sensors is met by the GPS technology (Paragraph 73) and one or more ultrasonic sensors (Paragraph 67) including at least an angular sensor (Paragraph 66: inputs for the control systems…may include an angular degree of correct/incorrect; Paragraph 76: complex “dead-reckoning” algorithms), the angular sensor configured to detect angular data of an angle between an orientation of the haptic navigation device and the target (Paragraph 74: The algorithm conforms to a method of wayfinding), 2) the claimed vibration motor is met by the actuators (No. 150; Paragraph 71: any other suitable actuator or actuators), the vibration motor configured to generate haptic feedback based on mapped patterns based on the orientation of the haptic navigation device relative to the target (Paragraph 75: will provide tactile feedback whenever the user begins navigation, is going the correct way, is going the incorrect way), and 3) the claimed central processing unit is met by the printed circuit board (No. 130) as well as the mobile electronic device (No. 1200) to offload heavy computing (Paragraph 76), configured to 4) execute instructions to implement the haptic navigation device to interpret the angular data that is output from the angular sensor (Paragraph 32: the mobile electronic device is configured to analyze data gathered by the vibrating haptic device; Paragraph 76: the application uses GPS and/or other wireless signals to locate a position and orientation of the user), 5) translate the angular data to form a mapping of dynamic haptic patterns (Paragraph 81: the vibrating haptic device 100 expresses a logarithmic relation between strength of the haptic feedback to the angle, which is an intuitive way to express “wrong way, right way”), and 6) control the vibration motor of the haptic navigation device to correspond to the mapping of the dynamic haptic patterns (Paragraph 81: For example, if the user is facing 0 degrees towards destination (A), there is no haptic feedback, except for very faint, intermittent (confirmation). In contrast, at 180 degrees towards destination (A), there is 100% feedback), 7) the claimed memory is met by the device (No. 100) that may store the mapping of the haptic patterns (Paragraph 73: The device 100 may be embedded with GPS technology and/or maps may be stored on the device), and 8) the claimed graphic user interface is met by the mobile device display (Fig. 8) as well as the screenshots (Figs. 2-7) of the navigation map to interact with the haptic feedback.
For claim 3, the Yoo reference maps its data using one or more mapping algorithms (Paragraph 74: the vibrating haptic device 100 connects to a custom application that has a unique algorithm for non-visual, non-audial navigation).
For claim 4, the haptic feedback of Yoo is a vibration output (Abstract: vibrating haptic device).
For claim 5, the vibration output of Yoo may entail a frequency change (Paragraph 80: creating seven distinct frequencies…in one single actuator 150 device provide a tactile frequency range).
For claim 6, the vibration output of Yoo may entail an amplitude change (Paragraph 81: no haptic feedback, except for very faint…there is 100% feedback).
For claim 7, the vibration output of Yoo may be intermittent (Paragraph 81: intermittent).
For claim 8, the vibration output of Yoo may be continuous (Paragraph 81: 100% feedback).
For claim 10, the vibration output of Yoo may transition from a substantially low intensity to a substantially high according to the orientation (Paragraph 81: For example, if the user is facing 0 degrees towards destination (A), there is no haptic feedback, except for very faint, intermittent (confirmation). In contrast at 180 degrees towards destination (A), there is 100% feedback).
For claim 12, the sensors of Yoo include geolocation (Paragraph 73: GPS technology).
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, 9, 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al in view of Levesque [US 2017/0243452].
For claim 2, the Yoo reference states that maps may be stored in the device as noted above in the rejection of claim 1; however, there is no mention of a memory configured to store predetermined haptic parameter values.
Memories can and have been used to store many different elements. And the haptic device taught by Levesque includes a storage system that is used to produce haptic effects to users that has different signatures (Paragraph 4). One important aspect of the Levesque reference is a memory (No. 130) that may contain various components for retrieving, presenting, modifying, and storing data. For example, the memory may store haptic effects instructions to provide a stream of commands to a processor (Paragraph 19). These effects include the type of effect such as vibration, deformation, or shaking, and other parameters such as frequency, duration, strength, among others.
The obvious advantage of the Levesque reference is that it presents an easy method to store instructions for the different effects needed to produce the different signatures. And the Yoo reference uses no less than seven different frequencies and a whole range of amplitudes to produce differing notifications to the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a memory to store predetermined haptic parameter values for the purpose of using a well-known storage device to easily store the different signature instructions.
For claim 9, the haptic signatures of Levesque may be 175 Hz (Paragraph 12) or 100 Hz (Paragraph 13).
For claim 11, the processor (No. 120) of Levesque constructs its haptic effects in real time (Paragraph 23).
For claim 13, the method of implementing a haptic navigation device (Title: haptic device; Abstract: aiding in navigation) configured to be communicatively coupled to a target (Paragraph 85: final destination) taught by Yoo includes the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) the claimed providing the haptic navigation device is achieved using the device (No. 100) worn or carried (No. 1200) by the user, 2) the claimed rendering a generation of haptic feedback is achieved using the actuators (No.150) to provide a cue to a user (Paragraph 71: any other suitable actuator or actuators), and 3) the claimed rendering a mapping pattern, using one or more algorithms, corresponding to a haptic response with varying degrees of deviation in orientation of the haptic navigation implementing the haptic navigation device from the target (Paragraph 81: Compass mode is the idea that the user, relative to his/her chosen destination, is at some angular degree of correct/incorrect) comprises the following claimed steps, as noted, 4) measuring angle measurements of the orientation of the haptic navigation device in relation to the target (Paragraph 74: The algorithm conforms to a method of wayfinding, so that vibrating haptic device’s 100 haptic feedback signals/patterns will change; Paragraph 76: the application uses GPS and/or other wireless signals to locate a position and orientation of the user), 5) interpreting, using one or more algorithms, the angle measurements (Paragraph 81: the vibrating haptic device 100 expresses a logarithmic relation between strength of the haptic feedback to the angle, which is an intuitive way to express “wrong way, right way”), and translating the angle measurements, using the one or more algorithms, into corresponding the haptic feedback (Paragraph 81: For example, if the user is facing 0 degrees towards destination (A), there is no haptic feedback, except for very faint, intermittent (confirmation). In contrast, at 180 degrees towards destination (A), there is 100% feedback). However, there is no mention of the sensor being a gyroscope or accelerometer.
Many different sensors can be used to effect motion detection, and the Levesque reference names several. The Levesque reference provides a device that produces several haptic signatures. The reference recites many different sensors (Paragraph 26) that detect the motion, velocity, acceleration, and orientation of the display, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, or magnetometer.
The Yoo reference also requires inputs corresponding to orientation in order to provide correct alerts and notifications to the user. And the Levesque reference provides plain evidence that gyroscopes and accelerometers can and have been used to measure the orientation of the user or device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gyroscope or accelerometer as the sensor in Yoo for the purpose of using a well-known sensor to gather needed orientation data.
For claim 14, the haptic feedback of Yoo is a vibration output (Abstract: vibrating haptic device).
For claim 15, the vibration output of Yoo may entail a frequency change (Paragraph 80: creating seven distinct frequencies…in one single actuator 150 device provide a tactile frequency range).
For claim 16, the vibration output of Yoo may entail an amplitude change (Paragraph 81: no haptic feedback, except for very faint…there is 100% feedback).
For claim 17, the vibration output of Yoo may be intermittent (Paragraph 81: intermittent).
For claim 18, the vibration output of Yoo may be continuous (Paragraph 81: 100% feedback).
For claim 19, the haptic signatures of Levesque may be 175 Hz (Paragraph 12) or 100 Hz (Paragraph 13).
For claim 20, the processor (No. 120) of Levesque constructs its haptic effects in real time (Paragraph 23).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,203,770. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/418,549 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeleny [US 2011/0148607] provides haptic feedback to a subject.
Yoo et al [U.S. 10,371,544] includes a vibrating haptic device for navigation.
Culbertson et al [US 2019/0334426] provides vector haptic feedback cues.
Rivas [U.S. 11,928,259] controls haptic feedback based on user proximity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
12/15/2025
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689