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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(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 1-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Modarres et al. (US 10,429,934).
Regarding claim 1: Modarres discloses an apparatus for controlling haptic feedback, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (144); and at least one processor (142) coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: obtain first environmental information (first temperature) indicative of an environment of the apparatus from at least one sensor; determine a first context associated with the apparatus based on the first environmental information; determine a first level of haptic feedback for output by the apparatus based on the first context; obtain second environmental information (second temperature) indicative of the environment of the apparatus from the at least one sensor; determine a second context associated with the apparatus based on the second environmental information; and determine a second level of haptic feedback for output by the apparatus based on the second context (col. 5, line 48-col. 6, line 61; col. 7, line 14-col. 8, line 67; col. 9, lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 2: Modarres discloses the second environmental information from the at least one sensor indicates a change associated with the environment of the apparatus (change from first temperature to second temperature) (col. 9, lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 3: Modarres discloses the change associated with the environment includes a change in noise level associated with the environment (audio content of the media content (122) (col.3, lines 55-66; col. 4, lines 4-14, 38-46).
Regarding claim 4: Modarres discloses the at least one processor is configured to adjust the first level of haptic feedback to the second level of haptic feedback (col. 4, lines 38-46; col. 9, lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 5: Modarres discloses the first context is based on a first type of sensor used to capture the first environmental information (col. 9, lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 6: Modarres discloses the second context is based on a second type of sensor used to capture the second environmental information, wherein the second type of sensor is different than the first type of sensor (col. 9, lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 7: Modarres discloses the first type of sensor is an image sensor (col. 4, lines 4-9; col. 5, lines 18-28) and wherein the second type of sensor is an audio sensor (col. 5, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 8: Modarres discloses the first context is based on a first speech context associated with the first environmental information (audio content of the first environment) (col. 3, line 56-col. 4, line 9; col. 5, lines 29-47).
Regarding claim 9: Modarres discloses the second context is based on a second speech context associated with the second environmental information, wherein the second speech context is different than the first speech context (audio content from the first and second media content regarding the first and second ambient temperature) (col. 9, lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 11: Modarres discloses the at least one processor is configured to determine the first level of haptic feedback further based on an amount of noise associated with the first level of haptic feedback (col.3, lines 55-66; col. 4, lines 4-14, 38-46).
Regarding claim 13: Modarres discloses the amount of noise associated with the first level of haptic feedback is based on execution of an application (col. 11, lines 7-51).
Regarding claim 14: Modarres discloses the amount of noise associated with the first level of haptic feedback is further based on at least one setting associated with the application (col. 2, lines 11-23; col. 10, line 64-col. 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 15: Modarres discloses the at least one processor is configured to: identify applications that are configured to output notifications with haptic feedback; and adjust haptic feedback associated with notifications of at least a portion of the applications based on at least one of the determined first level of haptic feedback or the determined second level of haptic feedback (col. 10, line 64-col. 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 16: Modarres discloses the environment information comprises the audio and image from the media content (122) (col. 4, lines 4-30; col. 8, lines 37-41)
Regarding claim 18: adjust an audio volume output of an audio device based on the first context and the determined first level of haptic feedback.
Regarding claim 19: See claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20: See claim 2 above.
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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modarres et al. (US 10,429,934) in view of Felton (US 2020/0382868).
Regarding claim 10: Modarres does not disclose low and high ambient noise environment. Felton discloses a user interface including the haptic alert with the low and high ambient noise environment. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to considered the claimed low and high ambient noise environment as taught by Felton in a system as disclosed by Modarres to provide effective haptic feedback that is easily perceived and distinguished by the user.
Regarding claim 12: Modarres does not disclose the haptic feedback based on a surface contact. Felton discloses the user interface device including the haptic feedback from the touch-sensitive surface [0078, 0089, 0091]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to considered the claimed surface contact as taught by Felton in a system as disclosed by Modarres to provide effective haptic feedback that is easily perceived by the user during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Chaudhri et al. (US 12,230,029) discloses a wearable multimedia device with environmental sensors to enrich content presentation with additional information that can be used to capture the moment.
-Stahlberg (US 2014/0320402) discloses a user interface for a device, and in particular to producing a dynamic haptic effect using feedback from sensors to determine operation of the haptic effect.
-Anderson et al. (US 2014/0281975) discloses a system and method for adaptive selection of context-based media for use in communication between at least two communication devices.
-Sturgeon et al. (US 12,483,843) discloses a context-based situational awareness for hearing instruments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/TOAN N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 4/10/26
Prosecution Insights