DETAILED ACTION
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 7-20 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.
In Reference to Claims 7 and 15
Claims 7 and 15 recite “the control data is generated, when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is not zero or substantially zero, by selecting between (i) the control data being generated as gradually bringing the amplitude closer to an amplitude designated by or derived from present vibration instruction data, and when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is zero or substantially zero, and (ii) the control data being generated immediately corresponding to the amplitude designated by or derived from the present vibration instruction data.” Although the claim recites “when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is not zero or substantially zero” and “selecting between” is appears to only recite a single alternative to be selected “when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is not zero or substantially zero.” The “selecting between” limitation makes it unclear whether there are supposed to be multiple options “when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is not zero…” As best understood based on applicant’s disclosure (See Fig. 7-8), the limitation is intended to select between two options, where “the control data being generated as gradually bringing the amplitude closer to an amplitude designated by or derived from present vibration instruction data, and when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is zero or substantially zero” is always chosen when “when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is not zero or substantially zero” and “the control data being generated immediately corresponding to the amplitude designated by or derived from the present vibration instruction data” when “when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is zero or substantially zero.” Applicant is encouraged to clarify the intended meaning of the claims by, for example, moving the “selecting between” language before the conditional “when it is determined in the determining that previous control data is not zero or substantially zero” or deleting the “selecting between” language or some similar amendment.
The remainder of this Office Action is considered as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enokihara et al., US 2022/0253141.
In Reference to Claim 1
Enokihara et al. teaches a vibration control system that controls a vibration motor, the vibration control system comprising: one or more processors (Par. 16 and 22); and one or more memories storing program code that, when executed by the one or more processors (Par. 17), causes the vibration control system to perform operations comprising: obtaining vibration instruction data that indicates at least an amplitude of vibration of the vibration motor (Par. 25 “non-host” and “the non-host model vibration command includes the numerical value specifying the vibration intensity” as well as Par. 44-47 “amplitude”), generating control data based on the obtained vibration instruction data, controlling the vibration motor with the control data (Par. 38, 43, and 47-48. Par. 20 and 35 “vibration device” and “vibration mechanism”), and determining at least one of whether previous control data is zero, whether previous control data is substantially zero, whether a previous amplitude is zero, or whether a previous amplitude is substantially zero (Par. 45 and 48 which teaches continuously determining whether the vibration command is zero in order to determine whether to generate a vibration based on the host or non-host model. See also Fig. 3 which teaches gradually increasing the vibration amplitude from zero previously to the indicated amplitude), wherein the control data is generated, in accordance with the determination, by selecting between (i) the control data being generated as gradually bringing the amplitude closer to an amplitude designated by or derived from present vibration instruction data and (ii) the control data being generated immediately corresponding to the amplitude designated by or derived from the present vibration instruction data (Fig. 3 and Par. 48 “In the example depicted in FIG. 3, a target amplitude At is an amplitude that is determined based on the vibration intensity specified by the vibration command. In a case where the non-host model vibration command specifying the intensity of a vibration is received, the vibration control section 43 immediately starts generating the vibration (at time t0). However, at the beginning of vibration, the vibration control section 43 does not operate the vibration mechanism 21 at the target amplitude At corresponding to the specified intensity. Instead, the vibration control section 43 gradually increases the amplitude to the target amplitude At during a predetermined rise time Ts from the beginning of vibration.” See also Par. 37 “In a case where the host model vibration command is used, the vibration control section 43 outputs a control signal that causes the vibration mechanism 21 to generate a vibration based on waveform data specified by the host model vibration command.” And Par. 38 “Meanwhile, in a case where the non-host model vibration command is used for vibration control, the vibration control section 43 produces waveform data for operating the vibration mechanism 21 on the basis of a specified vibration mechanism 21 for generating a vibration and a specified vibration intensity, which are included in the non-host model vibration command. The vibration control section 43 then outputs a control signal for generating a vibration based on the waveform data to the vibration mechanism 21. This causes the vibration device 20 to emulate a vibration that is presumably generated in a case where the non-host model vibration command is received by the conventional vibration device.” This teaches where the system selects between either immediately applying the full amplitude or gradually increasing to the full amplitude based on whether the instruction is a host model or non-host model vibration instruction).
In Reference to Claim 6
Enokihara et al. teaches generating the vibration instruction data that indicates an amplitude of zero when the vibration instruction data is not obtained (Par. 48 “Subsequently, upon newly receiving the non-host model vibration command specifying an intensity of zero, the vibration control section 43 exercises control (at time t1 in the present example) so as to stop the generation of the vibration. In this case, too, the vibration control section 43 gradually decreases the amplitude to zero during a predetermined fall time Te instead of immediately stopping the vibration at time t1.” Which teaches stopping the vibration when the system does not receive a vibration instruction. See also Par. 45).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokihara et al., US 2022/0253141, in view of Aoki et al., US 2018/0028910.
In Reference to Claim 2
Enokihara et al. teaches a system as described above in reference to Claim 1, including where the system teaches generation of control data for a gradual increase in the amplitude of the signal when the previous control data is determined to be zero or substantially zero (See Fig. 3 and Par. 48 for “non-host” vibration commands). However,
Enokihara et al. does not teach interpolating amplitude data in a second cycle shorter than a first cycle as gradually bringing the amplitude closer to the amplitude designated by or derived from the present vibration instruction data, and the generation of the control data is performed to generate the control data in the second cycle corresponding to the interpolated amplitude data, and to generate the control data in the second cycle corresponding to the amplitude designated by or derived from the present vibration instruction data.
Aoki et al. teaches interpolating amplitude data in a second cycle shorter than a first cycle as gradually bringing the amplitude closer to the amplitude designated by or derived from the present vibration instruction data, and the generation of the control data is performed to generate the control data in the second cycle corresponding to the interpolated amplitude data, and to generate the control data in the second cycle corresponding to the amplitude designated by or derived from the present vibration instruction data (Abstract and Fig. 24A-24B and Par. 290-295 which teaches interpolating a change between a first and second frequency or first and second amplitude of a vibration over a plurality of drive signal calculation timings. See also Par. 295 “As shown in FIGS. 24A and 24B, delay to some extent is caused after a value for a frequency and/or an amplitude is varied stepwise by the time the value is actually varied to the updated value. This delay, however, can sufficiently be little as compared with progress of game processing and it does not give rise to a practical problem.” Which examiner considers to be a second cycle shorter than a first cycle).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Enokihara et al. to perform a interpolation of the change in vibration over a shorter cycle as taught by Aoki et al. in order to avoid unintended abrupt vibration output when executing non-host vibration commands in Enokihara et al. and further to allow the user to tune the gradual change with different functions, as taught by Aoki et al. Par. 290, to better match the intended vibration fell of the non-host command.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Enokihara et al. to perform a interpolation of the change in vibration over a shorter cycle as taught by Aoki et al.
In Reference to Claim 3
Enokihara et al. teaches the vibration instruction data is data that further indicates a frequency, and the generation of the control data is performed to generate the control data corresponding to the frequency designated by the vibration instruction data when it is determined in the determining that a previous amplitude or previous control data is zero or substantially zero (Par. 47 which teaches where the instruction includes a frequency and generating vibration instructions at that frequency).
However, Enokihara et al. does not teach in the control, interpolating frequency data in the second cycle shorter than the first cycle as gradually bringing the frequency closer to a frequency designated by the present vibration instruction data.
Aoki et al. teaches interpolating frequency data in the second cycle shorter than the first cycle as gradually bringing the frequency closer to a frequency designated by the present vibration instruction data (Abstract and Fig. 24A and Par. 290-295 which teaches interpolating vibration data between a first and second frequency. Where examiner considers the update intervals the second cycle as described above).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Enokihara et al. to include interpolation of frequency in vibration as described by Aoki et al. in order to smooth the transition of changes in vibration command frequency. For example Enokihara et al. Par. 47 teaches “Further, in a case where a plurality of vibration mechanisms having different vibration characteristics are built in the conventional vibration device, the vibration control section 43 produces a vibration waveform by using the value of a frequency that is predetermined in association with a vibration mechanism specified by the vibration command.” So it would be desirable to smooth between vibration commands for different conventional vibration mechanisms which would have different vibration frequencies and avoid unintended vibration output from an abrupt switch of frequency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Enokihara et al. to include interpolation of frequency in vibration as described by Aoki et al.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokihara et al., US 2022/0253141, in view of Cruz-Hernandez et al., US 2014/0218185.
In Reference to Claim 4
Enokihara et al. teaches a system as described above in reference to Claim 1, and Enokihara et al. teaches the vibration instruction data is data that further indicates a frequency (Par. 47 including where different frequencies can be designated to better match different conventional vibration devices). However, Enokihara et al. does not teach the vibration control system further comprises storing frequency characteristic data on a voltage allowed to be inputted to the vibration motor at each frequency or a voltage allowed to be outputted from an amplifier that controls the vibration motor at each frequency, and the operations further comprise: determining an allowable value of the voltage allowed to be inputted or the voltage allowed to be outputted by referring to the frequency characteristic data based on the frequency designated by the vibration instruction data, and determining the amplitude to be used for control based on he determined allowable value (Fig. 3 and Par. 22-24 which teaches a “frequency response look-up table” for overdriving a vibration device designed to create strong vibration at a wide variety of frequencies. And Par. 13-15 which teaches that the overdrive voltage allows a more powerful vibration but that it is desirable to determine the highest voltage than can be applied without causing the vibration mechanism to “hit” the case and cause undesirable noise.)
It would be desirable to modify the system of Enokihara et al. to include the overdrive frequency characteristic lookup table as taught by Cruz-Hernandez et al. in order to include a host vibration device that can reproduce a variety of frequencies at higher amplitude to better match desired conventional vibration commands while avoiding driving the mechanism so hard as to cause undesirable noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Enokihara et al. to include the overdrive frequency characteristic lookup table as taught by Cruz-Hernandez et al.
In Reference to Claim 5
Cruz-Hernandez et al. teaches where the frequency characteristic data is data showing a ratio of the voltage allowed to be inputted or the voltage allowed to be outputted at each frequency to a maximum input voltage to the vibration motor or a maximum output voltage from the amplifier (See Fig. 3 and Par. 23 “LG LRA Max Driving Voltage vs Frequency” which teaches the frequency characteristics is an allowable overdrive voltage relative to a maximum of “12V”. thus since the data shows the maximum of 12V and the highest allowable as any particular frequency this is data “showing” a ratio of the voltage allowed to be inputted or the voltage allowed to be outputted at each frequency to a maximum input voltage to the vibration motor or a maximum output voltage from the amplifier since the user could divide the voltage value of the lookup table with 12V. See also Fig. 4A-4B and Par. 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hidenaga, US 2019/0260323 teaches adjusting the voltage of a vibration mechanism based on the frequency. Komori et al., US 2018/0243647 teaches outputting different vibratory effects for an instantaneous event or an ongoing event (Fig. 11-12). Kyuma, US 2018/0178120 teaches more gradual increase in vibration amplitude based on various criteria (Fig. 18-22).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 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, 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.
/CARL V LARSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights