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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 5/1/2026; claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 5, limitations “a rear of the displaying housing” believed to be “a rear of the display housing”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eid et al. (US 2017/0352292 A1) in view of Riedel (US 2015/0264339 A1) and Banerjee et al. (US 2007/0035511 A1)
Re claim 1:
Eid teaches 1. A dental procedure simulator (Eid, Abstract) comprising:
a computer configured to simulate a dental procedure or treatment (Eid, Abstract; [0067]),
a display housing, a display screen provided in the display housing (Eid, [0037]),
a parallel robot controlled by said computer, said parallel robot providing at least three degrees of translative freedom, said parallel robot being controlled by said computer to simulate a dental procedure or treatment by providing haptic force feedback through said parallel robot (Eid, [0017]; [0039] – [0040]; [0025]),
a handpiece operably coupled to said parallel robot by a mechanism that provides at least three degrees of rotational freedom (Eid, [0025], “(2) supporting two-hands interaction using two haptic devices”; [0034]; [0036], “series of haptic interfaces may be provided in pairs, as a left-hand interface and a right-hand interface (dominant/non-dominant)”),
said handpiece being configured to be held in a hand of a user and to be manipulated by a user in a workspace in real space (Eid, Abstract, “and the mirror instrument (non-dominant hand), and (3) a finger support mechanism using parallel manipulation”),
said computer being configured to generate images of the simulated dental procedure for display on said display screen (Eid, [0008], “The learner uses dental instruments attached to the haptic devices via custom grips, interact with 3D virtual models of teeth, gingiva, bone, calculus, instruments, etc., and feel their physical tactile properties with two hands. The learner is also provided a finger support mechanism for the intraoral fulcrum during instrumentation”; [0029], “Environment simulation module 230 maintains the graphic and haptic models that comprise the dental training environment, and synchronizes haptic device interaction”),
Eid does not explicitly disclose a partially transparent reflective element. However, Eid teaches a display housing, a display screen provided in the display housing (Eid, [0037]).
Riedel (US 2015/0264339 A1) teaches a direct interaction stereoscopic display system that produces an augmented or virtual reality environment. The system comprises one or more displays and one or more beam combiners to virtually project high-resolution flicker-free stereoscopic 3D imagery into a graphics volume in an open region.
Riedel teaches
wherein the display screen is disposed towards a rear of the display (Riedel, fig. 7 shows a user (116) view an object (250) from the rear to the front side of the display assembly),
a partially transparent reflective element provided in the display, wherein the partially transparent reflective element is disposed in a lower side of the display and towards a front end thereof (Riedel, fig. 7, 141 (or 104) located in the lower side of the display assembly; 141 (or 104) faces toward a front end and the object 250; [0055], “the second beam combiner 104 are partially transparent mirrors with mirrored surfaces 131 and 141”; [0056]), the display comprising a viewing opening in an upper side and towards the front end thereof, through which a user views the partially transparent reflective element (Riedel, fig. 2 shows a view opening in the upper side toward the front end).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
936
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of Riedel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator described in Eid, by providing the semitransparent / mirror display / as taught by Ridel, since the partial transparency of the beam combiner permits the user to simultaneously view his or her hand with the virtual imagery (Riedel, [0056]) and the light from the second display is directed to the user-viewpoint position behind the glasses without any secondary or ghost images or refraction-related misalignment (Riedel, [0055]).
Eid does not explicitly disclose a display screen provided in the display housing … wherein the partially transparent reflective element.
Banerjee teaches a compact haptic and augmented virtual reality system that produces an augmented reality environment (Banerjee, Abstract). Banerjee teaches the display housing … wherein the partially a partially transparent reflective element provided in the display housing (Banerjee, [0037], “A graphical environment is provided by a high-resolution display screen 28 positioned by the housing 16 with respect to a partially transparent mirror 30, e.g., a half-silvered mirror. The partially transparent mirror 30 permits the user 12 to see both the virtual reality display and the user's hands, which use the haptic touch device 22 below the mirror”; [0038] – [0040]). Therefore, in view of Banerjee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator described in Eid, by providing the transparent display as taught by Banerjee, since the partially transparent mirror are used to recreate an augmented reality environment. Real time head and hand tracking enhances graphics-haptics collocation and improves immersion and realism (Banerjee, [0032]) and compact haptice and augmented virtual reality system provides head tracking, high resolution, high pixel density, and perfectly matching haptics and graphics volumes. A highly realistic virtual environment is provided. User fatigue, dizziness, and headaches are reduced or avoided (Banerjee, [0025]).
Re claim 2:
2. The A dental procedure simulator according to claim 1, wherein said display housing is configured to shield the a partially transparent reflective element from ambient light (Riedel, fig. 7, 141 (or 104); fig. 2; [0055]; [0056]; [0069]).
Re claim 3:
3. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 1, configured to reflect said images from said display screen to the eyes of said user by reflection on said partially transparent reflective element and configured to mix said images with a view of said workspace seen by the user through said partially transparent reflective element (Riedel, fig. 7, 141 (or 104); fig. 2; [0055]; [0056]; [0069]).
Re claim 4:
4. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 1, wherein said images on said display screen are reflected to the eyes of the user, and wherein said workspace is simultaneously visible for the user through said partially transparent reflective element when said user looks at said partially transparent reflective element from a viewing space (Riedel, fig. 7, 141 (or 104); fig. 2; [0055]; [0056]; [0069]).
Re claim 5:
5. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 1, wherein said display screen is a stereoscopic display screen and wherein said computer is configured to send stereoscopic images to said stereoscopic display screen (Riedel, fig. 7, 141 (or 104); fig. 2; [0055]; [0056]; [0069]).
Re claim 6:
6. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 1, wherein said partially transparent reflective element is a partially transparent mirror or a semi-transparent mirror (Riedel, fig. 7, 141 (or 104); fig. 2; [0055]; [0056]; [0069]).
Claims 7 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eid et al. (US 2017/0352292 A1) in view of Lammertse (US 8,716,973 B1)
Re claim 7:
Eid teaches 7. A dental procedure simulator (Eid, Abstract) comprising:
a computer that is configured to simulate a dental procedure or treatment (Eid, Abstract; [0067]),
a first handpiece simulating a dental drill handle, said first handpiece being configured to be held in a hand of a user and to be manipulated by said user in a workspace in real space (Eid, [0036], “as a left-hand interface and a right-hand interface (dominant/non-dominant)”; [0054], “The left and right-handed users would naturally need to have a different device for their dominant hand”’; [0036], “The feedback to the manipulated object may result in graphical and/or haptic deformation or location manipulation”),
a linkage coupled to said reference, said linkage being controlled by said computer to simulate a dental procedure or treatment by providing haptic feedback through said linkage (Eid, fig. 6A shows a number of segments and three joints between 342 – 332; [0009], “haptic devices are utilized to simulate haptic feedback with both the dental instrument”),
a second handpiece for simulating a dental mirror, the second handpiece being configured to be held in a hand of a user and to be manipulated by said user in a workspace in real space (Eid, [0036], “as a left-hand interface and a right-hand interface (dominant/non-dominant)”; [0054], “The left and right-handed users would naturally need to have a different device for their dominant hand”’; [0036], “The feedback to the manipulated object may result in graphical and/or haptic deformation or location manipulation”),
a primary link coupled to said reference by one or more joints that provide a first and second degree of freedom (Eid, fig. 6A shows a number of segments and three joints between 342 – 332; [0009], “haptic devices are utilized to simulate haptic feedback with both the dental instrument”; [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; a number of segment – a primary link),
a secondary link coupled to said primary link by one or more joints that provide a third and fourth degree of freedom (Eid, fig. 6A shows a number of segments and three joints between 342 – 332; [0009], “haptic devices are utilized to simulate haptic feedback with both the dental instrument”; [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; a number of segment – a primary link),
said second handpiece being connected to said secondary link by one or more joints that provide a fifth and sixth degree of freedom to form a serial chain that connects said second handpiece to said reference with six degrees of freedom (Eid, [0025], “(2) supporting two-hands interaction using two haptic devices”; [0034]; [0036], “series of haptic interfaces may be provided in pairs, as a left-hand interface and a right-hand interface (dominant/non-dominant)”; [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”),
a first sensor for sensing movement in said first degree of freedom (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”),
a second sensor for sensing movement in said second degree of freedom (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”),
a third sensor for sensing movement in said third degree of freedom, said first, second and third position sensors being in data connection with said computer (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”), and
an inertial measurement unit arranged in said second handpiece, said inertial measurement unit being in data connection with said computer and said inertial measurement unit being configured to sense movements in at least said fourth, fifth and sixth degrees of freedom (Eid, [0039], “of rotation of the movement”; [0042], “the system comprises a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”).
Eid does not explicitly disclose a reference. Lammertse teaches a haptic arm comprising: a user connection element; a reference; a first linkage connecting the user connection element to the reference, where the first linkage provides at least six independent degrees of freedom, and contains an intermediate link, three force sensors, three angle sensors; a second linkage connecting the intermediate link to the reference; a third linkage connecting the intermediate link to the reference a fourth linkage connecting the intermediate link to the reference; the second, third, and fourth linkages each containing an independent actuator and position sensor (Lammertse, Abstract). Lammertse teaches a reference, a linkage coupled to said reference, a primary link coupled to said reference by one or more joints … said second handpiece to said reference with six degrees of freedom (Lammertse, Abstract; col. 1, line 43 – col. 2, line 3; figs. 4 - 6). Therefore, in view of Lammertse, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator described in Eid, by providing the reference as taught by Lammertse, since it was known in the art to provide a reference (a station) to connect to a number of linkages (Lammertse, fig. 4, L19).
Re claim 8:
8. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 7, wherein an extremity of said a first handpiece being connected to an extremity of said linkage via first pivot hinge, the other extremity of the handpiece link is attached to a connection element by a first pivot joint (Eid, fig. 1 and fig. 6A; [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”); Lammertse, figs. 4 – 6; col. 7, lines 36 - 50).
Re claim 9:
9. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 7, wherein said second handpiece is connected to said secondary link by one or more joints that provide a sixth degree of freedom, said sixth degree of freedom allowing said second handpiece to rotate about an axis of said second handpiece and said inertial measurement unit being configured to sense said sixth degree of freedom (Eid, fig. 1 and fig. 6A; [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”); Lammertse, figs. 4 – 6; col. 7, lines 4 – 14, “provides six degrees of freedom between the system ground and haptic dental tool handle tip 271”).
Re claim 10:
10. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 7, wherein said first sensor, said second sensor and/or said third sensor are rotary position sensors (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”).
Re claim 11:
11. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 7, wherein said primary link is an elongated link that is coupled to said reference by a third pivot joint that allows said primary link to rotate about its longitudinal axis to realize said first degree of freedom and wherein said first sensor is a rotary position sensor configured to sense rotation about said longitudinal axis of said primary link (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”).
Re claim 12:
12. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 7, wherein said primary link is an elongated link that is coupled to said reference by a hinge that allows said primary link to rotate about a transverse axis to obtain said second degree of freedom and wherein said second position sensor is a rotary position sensor configured to sense rotation of said primary link about said transverse axis (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”).
Re claim 13:
13. The dental procedure simulator according to claim 7, wherein said secondary link is an elongated link that is coupled to said primary link by a third hinge that allows said secondary link to rotate about a transverse axis to obtain said third degree of freedom, and wherein said third sensor is a rotary position sensor configured to sense rotational movement of said secondary link about said transverse axis (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”; [0065]).
Claims 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eid et al. (US 2017/0352292 A1) in view of Ben-Ur (US 6377011 B1).
Re claim 14:
Eid teaches 14. A medical procedure simulator (Eid, Abstract) comprising:
a handpiece configured to be held in a hand of a user and to be manipulated by said user in a workspace in real space (Eid, [0036], “as a left-hand interface and a right-hand interface (dominant/non-dominant)”; [0054], “The left and right-handed users would naturally need to have a different device for their dominant hand”’; [0036], “The feedback to the manipulated object may result in graphical and/or haptic deformation or location manipulation”),
a linkage controlled by a computer that is configured to simulate a medical procedure or treatment (Eid, fig. 6A shows a number of segments and three joints between 342 – 332; [0009], “haptic devices are utilized to simulate haptic feedback with both the dental instrument”),
said handpiece comprising an inner part being configured to rotate about said inner part (Eid, [0051], “The 300° rotation of the handle needs to be moved from current location on haptic device to allow for +/-150° per direction of use. The 6-DOF force feedback was not required for the probing procedure but might be desired in the scaling procedure”; [0052], “its stylus that restricts a 360 degree rotation”; fig. 4 shows a part – stylus tip and an inner part – stylus connects to the joint),
a portion, said portion being coupled to said linkage by a joint with at least two degrees of freedom (Eid, [0051], “The 300° rotation of the handle needs to be moved from current location on haptic device to allow for +/-150° per direction of use. The 6-DOF force feedback was not required for the probing procedure but might be desired in the scaling procedure”; [0052], “its stylus that restricts a 360 degree rotation”; fig. 4 shows a part – stylus tip and an inner part – stylus connects to the joint),
an inertial measurement unit mounted to said inner part and coupled to said computer (Eid, [0039], “of rotation of the movement”; [0042], “the system comprises a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”), and a rotary position sensor for sensing rotational movement of said outer part relative to said inner part, said rotary position sensor being coupled to said computer, at least a first portion of said rotary position sensor being mounted on said inner part (Eid, [0051], “The 300° rotation of the handle needs to be moved from current location on haptic device to allow for +/-150° per direction of use. The 6-DOF force feedback was not required for the probing procedure but might be desired in the scaling procedure”; [0052], “its stylus that restricts a 360 degree rotation”; fig. 4 shows a part – stylus tip and an inner part – stylus connects to the joint), and
said first portion being connected to said computer by a cable that is guided or supported by said inner part (Eid, [0046]).
Eid does not explicitly disclose an inner part protrudes from said outer part.
Ben-Ur (US 6377011 B1) teaches a handle module actuates handles of a user interface for various applications, including minimally invasive surgery ("MIS"). Ben-Ur teaches said handpiece comprising an inner part extending into an outer part with the outer part being configured to rotate about said inner part; a portion of said inner part protrudes from said outer part, said portion being coupled to said linkage by a joint with at least two degrees of freedom (Ben-Ur, figs. 5 – 8; fig. 13; i.e., fig. 7, 24 is protrude out of 34; fig. 5 show the 24 is rotatable to a joint; col. 9, lines 56 – 63, “being rotatable relative to each other about an axis that is perpendicular to the axis of elongation of the first and 60 second shafts”). Therefore, in view of Ben-Ur, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator described in Eid, by providing the rotatable member with inner and outer members (Ben-Ur, fig. 7, 24 and 34) as taught by Ben-Ur, in order to provide a replaceable inner shaft as taught by Ben-Ur.
Re claim 15:
15. The medical procedure simulator according to claim 14, wherein said inertial measurement unit is coupled to said computer by a cable that is guided or supported by said inner part (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”).
Re claim 16:
16. The medical procedure simulator according to claim 14, wherein said inner part is elongated and is connected to said joint at a first extremity of said inner part, said rotary position sensor being arranged at or near a second extremity of said inner part, said second extremity being located inside said outer part (Eid, [0036], “with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input”; [0039], “The finger support 350 can also be designed in different ways (number of segments and degrees of freedom for each)”; [0042], “a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”; [0051], “rotation of the handle”; Ben-Ur, col. 2, lines 26 – 51, “outer and inner shafts 524 and 526, and the smaller handle piece 528a therebetween”).
Re claim 17:
17. The medical procedure simulator according to claim 14, wherein said inertial measurement unit is configured for creating position and/or orientation data of said handpiece in real space (Eid, [0039], “of rotation of the movement”; [0042], “the system comprises a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”).
Re claim 18:
18. The medical procedure simulator according to claim 14, wherein said coupling of said inertial measurement unit to said computer comprises a data link from the inertial measurement unit to said computer for transmission of position and/or orientation data (Eid, [0039], “of rotation of the movement”; [0042], “the system comprises a six degrees-of-freedom force sensor (3 force and 3 torque) and accelerometer”).
Re claim 19:
19. The medical procedure simulator according to claim 14, wherein said coupling of said rotary position sensor to said computer comprises a data link from said rotary position sensor to said computer for transmission of rotary position data (Eid, [0052], “the haptic device has a small cog in its stylus that restricts a 360 degree rotation, for example restricting movement to 300degrees, in one embodiment 150+/- degrees from a resting or neutral location”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eid et al. (US 2017/0352292 A1) in view of Ben-Ur (US 6377011 B1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gerbi et al. (US 2003/0060927 A1).
Re claim 20:
Eid does not explicitly disclose an infinite rotating member. Gerbi teaches an input device for robotic surgery mechanically transmits a grip signal across a first joint coupling a handle to a linkage supporting the handle. The handle is removable and replaceable, allows unlimited rotation about the joint, and may optionally include a touch sensor to inhibit movement of a surgical end effector when the hand of the surgeon is not in contact with the handle. Gerbi teaches 20. The medical procedure simulator according to claim 14, wherein said outer part has infinite rotation relative to said inner part (Gerbi, Abstract, “The handle is removable and replaceable, allows unlimited rotation about the joint”). Therefore, in view of Gerbi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator described in Eid, by providing the unlimited rotation as taught by Gerbi, in order to increase the flexibility of the tool by allowing a surgeon to turn the tool in any number of rotations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument that amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Eid and Banerjee because none of Eid and Banerjee discloses, teaches, or suggests at least the features "wherein the display screen is disposed towards a rear of the displaying housing" and "wherein the partially transparent reflective element is disposed in a lower side of the display housing and towards a front end thereof, the display housing comprising a viewing opening in the upper side thereof and towards the front end thereof, through which a user views the partially transparent reflective element" of amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner submits that the newly cited reference: Riedel (US 2015/0264339 A1) teaches the display screen is disposed towards a rear of the display… a partially transparent reflective element … , wherein the partially transparent reflective element is disposed in a lower side of the display housing and towards a front end thereof …
Applicant argues independent claim 7 recites a specific hybrid sensor system that uses linkage-based sensors for the first three degrees of freedom and a handpiece-mounted Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) for the other three. As explained in the Specification, this specific combination solves the technical problem of compensating for IMU drift. Neither Eid nor Lammertse discloses, teaches, or suggests this specific hybrid architecture. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine them to arrive at the claimed solution.
The examiner submits that Eid teaches the linkage system that provides six degrees of freedom (Eid, [0036], “there is one haptic interface for each trainee's hand. Thus, an series of haptic interfaces may be provided in pairs, as a left-hand interface and a right-hand interface (dominant/non-dominant). Further, while the haptic systems described herein are framed in terms of a system with three degrees of freedom, the system could use more, such as six degrees of freedom input. Generally, the systems could use: a) sensors to capture user performance such as force sensors on the tool grip 360 to check if the trainee holds it correctly or posture sensors to measure the body posture …” and fig. 6A). Therefore, Eid teaches a system capable of providing six degrees of freedom input for each hand (linkage sensors with six-degree of freedom). Lammertse teaches sensor provides six degree of freedom using Inertial Measurement System (i.e., accelerometer or gyroscope) (see Lammertse, (Lammertse, Abstract; col. 1, line 43 – col. 2, line 3; figs. 4 – 6; col. 15, lines 54 – 57).
Applicant argues “independent claim 14 recites a specific mechanism for enabling infinite rotation sensing: a rotary sensor is mounted on the stationary inner part, and its cable is guided through that inner part. This elegant design allows the outer part to rotate infinitely without requiring complex and unreliable slip rings or causing the cable to break. The applied prior art teaches the general concepts of rotation and handpieces but does not teach or suggest this specific structural solution to the technical problem of sensing infinite rotation”.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. It’s unclear which limitation correspond to “sensing infinite rotation”.
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 JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights