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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per independent claims 1, 10 and 19, the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the invention as claimed, specifically with regard to “detecting an object in a virtual reality (VR) space”.
The specification describes various aspects of a haptic glove, including the use of MR fluid-based actuators and sensors such as pressure sensors and electromyography (EMG) (see Para. 75-82). However, the detection of an object in a VR space is mentioned without sufficient explanation or support in the specification. The specification does not describe the method, technology, or apparatus that would be used to detect the object within the VR environment. The mere mention of object detection without further elaboration or description of how such detection is performed fails to satisfy the written description requirement. A person skilled in the art would not be able to fully understand or make use of the claimed detection process based solely on the current disclosure.
Similarly, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 which reply on the independent claims for their scope, would also be rejected because they do not add new or sufficient written description for the similar set forth.
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 1-20 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. As per independent claims 1, 10 and 19, the claim language “detecting an object in a virtual reality (VR) space” lacks sufficient clarity and specificity to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the invention.
The specification fails to provide adequate details regarding the method or apparatus for detecting the object in the VR space. It is unclear how the object is detected, what technology or devices are used for detection, and what parameters are necessary to identify the object within the virtual environment. The phase as written is overly broad and could encompass any number of detection methods without providing clear guidance or limitations. As written, the claim is not sufficiently clear as to what constitutes an object in the VR space, nor does it clarify the detection mechanism. A skilled artisan would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty what is meant by the detection of an object in the VR space without further clarification.
Similarly, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 which reply on the independent claims for their scope, would also be rejected because they do not add new or sufficient written description for the similar set forth.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6-7,9, 10-11,15-16,18,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 2016/0363997).
As per claim 1, Black teaches: A method for providing haptic feedback through a haptic glove (Para 12,66,91), the method comprising:
detecting an object in a virtual reality (VR) space (Para 93-94,62,66,73,89,100: interaction of a virtual hand with virtual object; detecting a virtual object in VR is shown through the glove’s sensors and the computing device’s virtual object tracking. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “detecting an object in a virtual reality space” encompasses detecting the presence of, proximity to, or interaction with a virtual object, as disclosed by Black. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to use the glove and computing system to detect objects in a VR space to enable interactive feedback. It would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.);
controlling an electromagnetic field for an actuator based on a magneto-rheological fluid (MR fluid) mounted on the haptic glove based on properties of the detected object (Para. 76-82,91-94,64,66,80,13,62,78: Electromagnets are selectively activated and controlled; magnetorheological fluid in glove-mounted fluid channels whose properties change under magnetic fields; haptic feedback parameters depends on interaction with virtual object; it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to control the electromagnetic field applied to MR fluid actuators based on properties of a detected virtual object because Black teaches controlling MR fluid properties in response to detected virtual interactions to provide realistic haptic effects.); and
providing haptic feedback to a user of the haptic glove using properties of the MR fluid that change based on the controlled electromagnetic field (Para. 66,73,76-82,91,96-99: changing viscosity/stiffness of MR fluid via electromagnets to provide tactile sensation; providing haptic feedback using MR fluid whose properties change in response to controlled electromagnetic fields is explicitly disclosed and would have been obvious as a natural implementation of Black’s glove with MR fluid channel.).
As per claim 2, Black teaches wherein a plurality of MR fluid-based actuators are mounted on each finger of the haptic glove (Para 64,66,78,62,73,80: arrangement of multiple MR fluid chambers and electromagnets position along each finger of the glove), and
wherein the plurality of MR fluid-based actuators are connected to a fixed structure of the haptic glove using an elastic line and a non-elastic line (Para. 64,78,73,91,66,78: the disclosed tensioning element would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include combination of compliant (flexible/elastic) and resistance forces, as is well understood in haptic glove design. The recited “elastic line” and “non-elastic line” reasonably read on the flexible and non-flexible force- transmission elements disclosed in Black that connect actuators to fixed glove structures. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.)
As per claim 6, Black teaches wherein, if the electromagnetic field is applied to the MR fluid, a hard expression haptic feedback is provided as particles of the MR fluid grow larger (Para 80,91: the application of a magnetic field increase the apparent viscosity of the fluid, thereby providing increased resistance or “hard” haptic feedback. Applying an electromagnetic field to an MR fluid changes its mechanical properties, producing stiffening effects or resistance that are felt by the user as hard or firm haptic feedback. The MR fluid is used in finger or hand actuators to provide variable haptic sensations in response to interactions with virtual objects.)
Black may not literally state “particles grow larger”, it describes:
The increase in effective viscosity or stiffening under a magnetic field,
Which directly results from particle alignment and chain formation in MR fluids,
Producing a haptic sensation equivalent to what claim 6 terms “hard expression” feedback.
Thus, the claimed effect is well known and predictable based on the behavior of MR fluids.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to use EM fields to stiffen MR fluids: 1) the motivation is to provide a range of haptic sensations from soft to hard in a glove actuator system; 2) the resulting particle alignment and stiffening is well known and expected outcome, requiring no inventive step. In other words, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to provide a haptic glove in which an electromagnetic field is applied to an MR fluid to produce stiffening and “hard” tactile feedback, as claimed 6, in view of the teachings of Black regarding MR fluids and EM field control.
As per claim 7, Black teaches wherein, if the electromagnetic field is not applied to the MR fluid, a soft haptic feedback is provided as particles of the MR fluid become smaller (Para. 80.76-81: a known property of magnetorheological (MR) fluids – namely, that in the absence of magnetic field, MR fluid particles are randomly dispersed, resulting in a low viscosity of soft state, producing a soft or compliant haptic sensation. Black teaches that in the absence of a magnetic field, MR fluids remain low viscosity, providing minimal resistance to motion. MR fluids are utilized in finger or hand actuators to provide variable haptic sensations, which are modulated based on the presence or absence of electromagnetic fields).
Black may not literally say “particles become smaller”; it describes:
The MR fluid in a low field state remains unstructured,
Producing a compliant or soft tactile sensation,
Which is functional and equivalent to what claim 7 terms “soft haptic feedback”.
Thus the claimed effect is well known and predictable based on standard MR fluid behavior.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to provide soft feedback wherein the motivation is to allow the glove to provide a range of tactile sensations from soft to hard, which is routine and predictable based on MR fluid properties. In other words, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to provide a haptic glove in which, when an electromagnetic field is not applied MR fluid, the fluid remains soft, producing a soft haptic feedback, as taught by Black regarding MR fluid control and tactile feedback
As per claim 9, Black discloses wherein a signal controlling the electromagnetic field is generated based on a change in detection of one or more sensors mounted on the haptic glove, and wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a pressure sensor or an electromyography (EMG) sensor (Para. 90-91,94,120,119; Fig. 15A: it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to use pressure and EMG sensors to generate control signals for MR fluid/electromagnetic actuator as taught by Black to provide responsive haptic feedback. In other words, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to generate a control signal for electromagnetically controlled MR fluid actuators based on pressure and/or EMG sensor input from the glove as taught by Black. The use of EMG or pressure sensors to drive actuator signals is a predictable implementation of the sensor driven haptic feedback described in Black. It would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
As per claims 10-11,15-16,18,19-20; they correspond to claims 1-2,6-7,9; they are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth. Black further discloses the claim subject matter: “at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the processor is configured to” and “One or more non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instructions, wherein the one or more instructions are executed by one or more processors and control an apparatus for providing haptic feedback through a haptic glove to:” (Para. 93-99: it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to utilize the processor and memory of Black to implement the claimed function wherein how data processing would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689