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 § 112
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 23-25 and 31-34 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.
Claim 23 recites “I is a moment of inertia of a cross section of the supporting beam” in lines 5-6 of the claim which contradicts with “I is a height of the supporting beam” recited in line 6 of the claim. Clarification of “I is a moment of inertia of a cross section of the supporting beam” and “I is a height of the supporting beam” is required.
As to claim 23, it is unclear what “ l “ in (K l ) 2 stands for. What does “ l “ in (K l) 2 stand for?
As to claim 23, it is unclear what “K” in (K l ) 2 and K = (1/n)^(1/2) stand for. What does “K” in
(K l ) 2 and K = (1/n)^(1/2) stand for?
As to claim 23, it is unclear what “g” in “mg cos θ” stands for. What does “g” in “mg cos θ” stand for?
Claims 24, and 31-34 are rejected based on dependence on claim 23.
Claim 25 recites “I is a moment of inertia of a cross section of the supporting beam” in lines 5-6 of the claim which contradicts with “I is a height of the supporting beam” recited in line 6 of the claim. Clarification of “I is a moment of inertia of a cross section of the supporting beam” and “I is a height of the supporting beam” is required.
As to claim 25, it is unclear what “ l “ in “ l 3* m” stands for. What does “ l “ in “ l 3* m” stand for?
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) 21-22, 26, 30, 36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. (US 2012/0075210 A1).
As to claim 21, Coni et al. discloses a haptics panel, comprising: a haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 1; [0044]: resonant frequency of the assembly consisting of the touch-sensitive surface 1);
a supporting substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [0043]: support 4) arranged opposite to the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 1; [0044]: resonant frequency of the assembly consisting of the touch-sensitive surface 1);
at least one exciter (3 in Fig. 1; [0043]: actuators 3) arranged between the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 1; [0044]: resonant frequency of the assembly consisting of the touch-sensitive surface 1) and the supporting substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [0043]: support 4),
at least one supporting structure (2 in Fig. 1;[0041]: frame 2) arranged between the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 1; [0044]: resonant frequency of the assembly consisting of the touch-sensitive surface 1) and the supporting substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [0043]: support 4),
wherein one end of the supporting structure (2 in Fig. 1; [0041]: frame 2) is connected to the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 1; [0041]: frame 2 coupled to the touch-sensitive surface 1;[0044]: resonant frequency of the assembly consisting of the touch-sensitive surface 1) and other end of the supporting structure (2 in Fig. 1;[0041]: frame 2) is connected to the supporting substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [0043]: actuators 3 are coupled on the one hand to the support 4 and on the other hand to the frame 2);
wherein structural parameters of the at least one supporting structure satisfy: a resonance frequency of the haptics substrate is within a preset range ([0044]: resonant frequency is located in a frequency band), and the at least one supporting structure does not buckle under an action of static load and dynamic load ([0044]: the frame and the touch-sensitive surface form a rigid assembly (i.e. unable to buckle or bend under an action of static load and dynamic load)). This embodiment does not explicitly disclose the exciter being configured to drive the haptics substrate to resonate along a horizontal direction of the haptics substrate.
However, in the background of the invention, Coni et al. discloses the exciter being configured to drive the haptics substrate to resonate along a horizontal direction of the haptics substrate ([0018]: actuators producing motions parallel to the plane of the touch-sensitive surface).
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 device of Coni et al. such that the exciter being configured to drive the haptics substrate to resonate along a horizontal direction of the haptics substrate as disclosed in the background of the invention, in order to produce various sensations to provide haptic feedback for touch screen applications.
As to claim 22, Coni et al. discloses the haptics panel according to claim 21, wherein the at least one supporting structure (2 in Fig. 1; [0041]: frame 2) comprises:
a first connection structure (top part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) fixed to a side of the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 1) facing the supporting substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [0041]: frame 2 coupled to the touch-sensitive surface 1),
a second connection structure (bottom part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) fixed to a side of the supporting substrate facing the haptics substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [0043]: actuators 3 are coupled on the one hand to the support 4 and on the other hand to the frame 2), and
a supporting beam (middle part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) connecting the first connection structure (top part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) and the second connection structure (bottom part of frame 2 in Fig. 1);
wherein the structural parameters of the at least one supporting structure are structural parameters of the supporting beam ([0044]: frame 2 form a rigid assembly whose resonant frequency is located in a frequency band).
As to claim 26, Coni et al. discloses the haptics panel according to claim 22, wherein the supporting beam (middle part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) connects centers of the first connection structure (top part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) and the second connection structure (bottom part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) to form the at least one supporting structure which is “I”-shaped (Fig. 1 shows the supporting beam (middle part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) connects centers of the first connection structure (top part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) and the second connection structure (bottom part of frame 2 in Fig. 1) to form the at least one supporting structure which is “I”-shaped).
As to claim 30, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel according to claim 36, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the supporting beam along a thickness direction of the haptics substrate is a rectangle or a circle (Fig. 1 shows a cross-sectional shape of the supporting beam 2 along a thickness direction of the haptics substrate 1 is a rectangle).
As to claim 36, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel according to claim 22, wherein the exciter is fixed to a side of the supporting beam ([0043]: actuator 3 coupled to the frame 2).
As to claim 38, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel according to claim 21, wherein the exciter is a piezoelectric film structure, a piezoelectric ceramic block structure or a linear motor ([0012];[0028]: piezoelectric actuator).
As to claim 39, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel according to claim 21, further comprising a touch layer located on a side of the haptics substrate ([0003];[0044]: Fig. 1, top layer of touch-sensitive surface 1) facing away from the supporting substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [0043]: support 4).
As to claim 40, Coni et al. teaches a haptics apparatus ([0038]: haptic interaction device), comprising the haptics panel according to claim 21 (see rejection for claim 21).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. (US 2012/0075210 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 2016/0091972 A1).
As to claim 27, Coni et al. discloses the haptics panel according to claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the supporting beam connects ends of the first connection structure and the second connection structure to form the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped; an opening of the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped faces toward a direction parallel to the haptics panel.
However, Patel et al. teaches wherein the supporting beam (supporting beam in Fig. 6 below) connects ends of the first connection structure (first connection structure in Fig. 6 below) and the second connection structure (second connection structure in Fig. 6 below) to form the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped (Fig. 6 shows supporting beam is “U”-shaped); an opening of the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped (supporting beam in Fig. 6 below) faces toward a direction parallel to the haptics panel (Fig. 6, [0027];[0049]: vibrational, lateral, or other movement by actuator 19 being efficiently transferred to touch assembly 25 such that a user benefits from haptic feedback).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Coni et al. such that the supporting beam connects ends of the first connection structure and the second connection structure to form the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped, and an opening of the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped faces toward a direction parallel to the haptics panel as taught by Patel et al. in order to provide the kind of haptic feedback necessary for a quality user experience.
As to claim 28, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the opening of the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped is toward a periphery of the haptics panel.
However, Patel et al. teaches wherein the opening of the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped (supporting beam in Fig. 6 above) is toward a periphery of the haptics panel (Fig. 6, [0027];[0049]: vibrational, lateral, or other movement by actuator 19 being efficiently transferred to touch assembly 25 such that a user benefits from haptic feedback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Coni et al. such that the opening of the at least one supporting structure which is “U”-shaped is toward a periphery of the haptics panel as taught by Patel et al. in order to provide the kind of haptic feedback necessary for a quality user experience.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. (US 2012/0075210 A1) in view of Fust et al. (US 2017/0148587 A1).
As to claim 29, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel according to claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose wherein orthographic projections of the first connection structure and the second connection structure on the supporting substrate do not overlap, and the supporting beam connects adjacent ends of the first connection structure and the second connection structure to form the at least one supporting structure which is "Z"- shaped.
However, Fust et al. teaches wherein orthographic projections of the first connection structure and the second connection structure on the supporting substrate do not overlap (Fig. 1 shows first connection structure and second connection structure of support arm 40 (top and bottom part of support arm 40) which do not overlap;[0048]), and the supporting beam connects adjacent ends of the first connection structure and the second connection structure to form the at least one supporting structure which is "Z"- shaped (Fig. 1 shows middle part of support arm 40 connects first connection structure and second connection structure of support arm 40 to form the at least one supporting structure which is "Z"- shaped;[0048]: Z-shaped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Coni et al. such that orthographic projections of the first connection structure and the second connection structure on the supporting substrate do not overlap, and the supporting beam connects adjacent ends of the first connection structure and the second connection structure to form the at least one supporting structure which is "Z"- shaped as taught by Fust et al. in order to provide high stiffness upon application of force.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. (US 2012/0075210 A1) in view of Shen (CN 111930237 A, attached English machine translation is used in the rejection).
As to claim 35, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel according to claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a third connection structure fixedly connected to the side of the haptics substrate facing the supporting substrate, and a supporting portion fixedly connected to the side of the supporting substrate facing the haptics substrate; wherein orthographic projections of the third connection structure and the supporting portion on the supporting substrate do not overlap; a first gap is provided between the third connection structure and the supporting substrate, a second gap is provided between the supporting portion and the haptics substrate, the exciter is fixed between the third connection structure and the supporting portion, and the exciter is not in contact with the haptics substrate and the supporting substrate.
However, Shen et al. teaches a third connection structure (connection structure between magnet 31 and touch display device 1 in Fig. 8) fixedly connected to the side of the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 8; [0069]: touch display device 1) facing the supporting substrate (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2), and
a supporting portion (23 in Fig. 8; [0072]) fixedly connected to the side of the supporting substrate (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2) facing the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 8; [0069]: touch display device 1);
wherein orthographic projections of the third connection structure (connection structure between magnet 31 and touch display device 1 in Fig. 8) and the supporting portion (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2) on the supporting substrate (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2) do not overlap (Fig. 8 shows orthographic projections of the third connection structure (connection structure between magnet 31 and touch display device 1 in Fig. 8) and the supporting portion (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2) on the supporting substrate (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2) do not overlap);
a first gap is provided between the third connection structure (connection structure between magnet 31 and touch display device 1 in Fig. 8) and the supporting substrate (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2), a second gap is provided between the supporting portion (23 in Fig. 8; [0072]) and the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 8; [0069]: touch display device 1), the exciter (31 in Fig. 8;[0072]) is fixed between the third connection structure(connection structure between magnet 31 and touch display device 1 in Fig. 8) and the supporting portion (23 in Fig. 8; [0072]), and the exciter (31 in Fig. 8;[0072]) is not in contact with the haptics substrate (1 in Fig. 8; [0069]: touch display device 1) and the supporting substrate (2 in Fig. 8; [0069]: base 2).
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 device of Coni et al. with a third connection structure,
a supporting portion, a first gap provided between the third connection structure and the supporting substrate, a second gap provided between the supporting portion and the haptics substrate, the exciter is fixed between the third connection structure and the supporting portion, and the exciter is not in contact with the haptics substrate and the supporting substrate as taught by Shen et al. in order to
generate expected tactile vibration feedback.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. (US 2012/0075210 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 2021/0168231 A1).
As to claim 37, Coni et al. teaches the haptics panel according to claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a material of the supporting structure comprises metal or stainless steel.
However, Baker et al. teaches wherein a material of the supporting structure comprises metal or stainless steel ([0120]: frame 204 formed of metal material).
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 device of Coni et al. such that a material of the supporting structure comprises metal or stainless steel as taught by Baker et al. in order to provide shielding between device components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 and 31-34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY KHOO whose telephone number is (571)270-3698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/STACY KHOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624