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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: HAPTIC MOTOR WITH TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 6 and 10-12 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 5 recites “thermistor and … motor are arranged on the same side” but it is unclear to what structure the “same side” refers. In addition, the claim recites “substrate…being defined as a reference” but it is unclear what it means for an item to “be a reference”. Consequently, the claim is indefinite.
The various dependent claims inherit this issue from their respective parent claims.
Claim 10 recites “the thermistor and the vibration motor are arranged…[on] a rear surface of the substrate” but it is unclear what would constitute the rear of a substrate. Consequently, the claim is indefinite.
The various dependent claims inherit this issue from their respective parent claims.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites “predetermined electronic component...is...arranged at an opposite surface of the substrate” which logically contradicts its parent claim which requires the component is arranged on the same surface of the substrate.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The various dependent claims inherit this issue from their respective parent claims.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 14, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chassot (pub. no. 20210064136).
Regarding claim 1, Chassot discloses a system comprising a device comprising a vibration motor (“The following high level summary is intended to provide a basic understanding of some of the novel innovations depicted in the figures and presented in the corresponding descriptions provided below. Aspects of the invention relate to the implementation and modification of haptic effects in peripheral input devices to compensate for temperature related performance degradation in certain embodiments. In some implementations, motors can be used to generate a haptic effect, such as force feedback. Force feedback can be comprised of a relatively low frequency force component (e.g., kinesthetic component) and a relatively high frequency force component (e.g., vibro-tactile). Certain peripheral devices (e.g., gaming steering wheels) may demand relatively high output haptic effects (e.g., haptic feedback) over extended periods of time, which can cause the motor to heat up and experience performance degradations. In these instances, a system comprised of the motor and a closed-loop controller configured to control the operation of the motor may provide a non-linear output response to an input driving the system, which may also be referred to as “clipping,” especially when attempting to generate high output haptic effects. In some instances, clipping may result in a constant output in response to a range of set point currents that drive the closed-loop controller, as shown in FIG. 5 and further described below. In other words, the motor may become saturated wherein the maximum response that the motor may provide is reduced due to temperature effects and any requested motor output above this saturation point will result in the same output response from the motor”, [0020];
“Some embodiments may include a peripheral device (e.g., a gaming steering wheel) having a housing, one or more processors (e.g., internal and/or external to the peripheral device), and a motor (e.g., direct current (DC) brushed motor, brushless motors, etc.) coupled to the housing and controlled by the one or more processors, the motor configured to generate a haptic effect (e.g., force feedback) based on an amount of electrical current driving the motor”, [0022]),
the system comprising: a thermistor arranged outside the vibration motor and in vicinity of the vibration motor in the device; one or more processors (“Alternatively or additionally, other methods of determining an operational state of a motor configured to generate haptic effects may be employed. For instance, a thermocouple may be configured to directly (e.g., coupled to the motor) or indirectly (e.g., couple to a housing adjacent to a motor) determine an operating temperature of the motor for thermal mitigation, as described throughout the present disclosure. The embodiments described herein typically incorporate closed-loop systems (e.g., feedback-based solutions) for mitigating deleterious thermal effects”, [0023]);
and one or more memories storing program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to perform operations comprising measuring a temperature with the thermistor, obtaining a current value and a voltage value of the vibration motor and estimating a temperature inside the vibration motor based on the obtained current value and voltage value, and restricting vibration of the vibration motor based on a first temperature which is the measured temperature and a second temperature which is the estimated temperature (“The one or more processors can be configured to receive a request (e.g., game application on a host computer requesting a force feedback corresponding to an in-game event) to cause the motor to generate the haptic effect having a specified force (e.g., feedback intensity); determine an operating range of the motor, wherein the operating range defines a maximum force that the motor can generate, and wherein the operating range changes based on a temperature of the motor; scale the specified force of the requested haptic effect based on the determined operating range of the motor; and control the operation of the motor to generate the haptic effect at the scaled specified force. In some aspects, determining the operating range of the motor can include applying an input voltage (e.g., a pulse-width modulated input) to the motor that is intended to cause an input current to the motor to reach a predetermined maximum current value; and measuring the input current, where scaling the specified force of the requested haptic effect includes reducing the specified force based on a ratio between the measured input current and the predetermined maximum current value. In some cases, the operating range of the motor is detected in real-time when the input device (e.g., steering wheel) is being used, and typically when the motor is relatively stationary (e.g., where a user is not rotating the wheel and causing back electromotive force (EMF)), to characterize the output ceiling of the motor at its current/recent operating temperature (e.g., the point of saturation). In some cases, one way to mitigate the problem of overheating and saturation conditions of a motor configured for haptic output is to use a more robust motor, however such motors may be costly, particularly when multiple motors are used, which can be problematic when trying to maintain certain price points. Thus, the methods and systems described herein allow relatively cheaper and less robust motors to be used without the user noticing any appreciable or discernable performance degradation”, [0022];
“Some preferred embodiments may be configured to dynamically scale the current set point according to an estimate of the motor winding resistance. Note that the maximum current, as described herein, generally refers to the maximum operating current that the motor can accept, and the linear operating range of the motor below the maximum operating current is scaled accordingly, such that any requested set point current within the operating range (e.g., received as a request from a gaming application) will be scaled down based on the newly determined maximum operating current. In instances where there is no temperature-based reduction in maximum operating current (e.g., motor temperature at 20° C.), then no scaling at any input may be necessary. In instances where the motor's maximum operating current is reduced due to the temperature-induced increase in motor winding resistance, then scaling of the input may be applied, as shown and described below with respect to FIG. 6. The set point can be set (e.g., scaled) periodically (e.g., once per second, etc.) or pseudo-continuously (e.g., essentially real-time from a user perspective at 4000 times per second) at any suitable rate. Such embodiments may prevent saturation when, for instance, software applications having high force feedback demands that cause the motor to reach high temperatures, and further allows for less demanding applications that keep the motor cool and can generate high current peaks when requested by the application”, [0047];
“Alternatively or additionally, a similar control scheme may be applied by obtaining the temperature of the motor windings themselves. A thermocouple or similar temperature sensor could be used for that purpose. However, such implementations may be difficult (and/or costly) as mechanically coupling a thermocouple can be very difficult to implement in DC brushed motors because the windings are rotating”, [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Chassot discloses the thermistor and the vibration motor are arranged on the same surface of a substrate where an electronic component is to be arranged ([0023]).
Claim 14 is directed to an article of manufacture containing code that implements the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 is directed to the method implemented by the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Chassot discloses measuring a temperature with the thermistor ([0023] & [0051]);
obtaining a current value and a voltage value of the vibration motor; calculating a resistance value based on the obtained current value and voltage value; and performing calibration on estimation of the temperature inside the vibration motor based on the measured temperature and the calculated resistance value ([0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4, 13, 15, 17 and 18 are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights