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 25-44 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.
Consider claim 25, in the claim Applicant recites, in part, “first modulating the generating of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a waveform to produce a haptic sensation at the haptic feedback point, which changes sound pressure to produce less audible sound pressure level than would be produced at the haptic feedback point when second modulating the generating of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a square wave modulation pattern.” This limitation renders claim 25 indefinite because it is unclear how the “less audible sound pressure level” comparison is determined. Furthermore, the term “audible sound pressure level’ lacks clear boundaries in the context of the claim and how it is measured. Additionally, the phrase “which changes sound pressure” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether “which” refers to the waveform, the first modulation, the generated ultrasound waves, the haptic sensation, or haptic feedback point.
Therefore, the claim does not clearly define what element or action changes sound pressure.
Consider claim 26-30, the phrase “the waveform is varied according to” a recited interpolation is unclear. Wherein the claim 26-29 respectively recite linear interpolation, cosine interpolation, polynomial interpolation, and trigonometric interpolation. The claims do not identify what waveform parameter is interpolated. As such, the scope of the interpolation limitation is unclear.
Consider claim 30, the term “parametric speaker interpolation” lacks a clear and definite meaning in the context of the claim on what parameter is interpolated or how such interpolation is performed.
Consider claim 31, the limitation “the square wave modulation pattern matches the modulation frequency of the waveform” is lack of relevant comparison parameters, including amplitude, duty cycle, haptic intensity, focal point position, measurement location, measurement time, or sound pressure weighting.
Consider claims 32 and 33, the limitation “the waveform comprises an interpolation of phase or amplitude of at least one of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers. These limitation remains indefinite at least because the independent claim does not clearly define the comparative “less audible sound pressure level” in the claim 25.
Consider claim 36-40, the reason for rejection is similar to claims 26-30 as set forth above.
Consider claim 40, the reason for rejection is similar to claim 30 as set forth above.
Consider claim 41, the reason for rejection is similar to claim 31 as set forth above.
Consider claims 42 and 43, the reason for rejection is similar to claims 32 and 33 as set forth above.
Consider claim 44, the claim recites “variance of position of the focal point.”, wherein the term “variance” is unclear whether it is refers to movement of the focal point, variation of the focal point, or another property.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10, 13, 16-22, 24, 25, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. US12,204,691. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same inventive scope has been claimed as shown in the table listed below:
Application #19/012,697
25. A method of creating haptic feedback using ultrasound comprising the steps of: using a plurality of ultrasonic transducers, generating a plurality of ultrasound waves, wherein at least two of the plurality of ultrasound waves form a focal point, wherein the focal point is a haptic feedback point; first modulating the generating of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a waveform to produce a haptic sensation at the haptic feedback point, which changes sound pressure to produce less audible sound pressure level than would be produced at the haptic feedback point when second modulating the generating of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a square wave modulation pattern.
US Patent #12,204,691
1. A method of creating haptic feedback using ultrasound comprising the steps of: using a plurality of ultrasonic transducers, generating a plurality of ultrasound waves, wherein at least two of the plurality of ultrasound waves form a focal point, wherein the focal point is a haptic feedback point that produces a tactile sensation; first modulating the generating of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a waveform to produce a haptic sensation at the haptic feedback point by obtaining a modulation frequency that produces the haptic sensation, which produces less audible sound pressure level than would be produced at the haptic feedback point when second modulating the generating of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a square wave modulation pattern.
26. The method as in claim 25, wherein the waveform is varied according to a linear interpolation.
2. The method as in claim 1, wherein the waveform is varied according to a linear interpolation.
27. The method as in claim 25, wherein the waveform is varied according to a cosine interpolation.
3. The method as in claim 1, wherein the waveform is varied according to a cosine interpolation.
28. The method as in claim 25, wherein the waveform is varied according to a polynomial interpolation.
4. The method as in claim 1, wherein the waveform is varied according to a polynomial interpolation.
29. The method as in claim 25, wherein the waveform is varied according to trigonometric interpolation.
5. The method as in claim 1, wherein the waveform is varied according to trigonometric interpolation.
30. The method as in claim 25, wherein the waveform is varied according to a parametric speaker interpolation.
6. The method as in claim 1, wherein the waveform is varied according to a parametric speaker interpolation.
31. The method as in claim 25, wherein the square wave modulation pattern matches the modulation frequency of the waveform.
7. The method as in claim 1, wherein the square wave modulation pattern matches the modulation frequency of the waveform.
32. The method as in claim 25, wherein the waveform comprises an interpolation of phase of at least one of the plurality of the ultrasonic transducers.
8. The method as in claim 7, wherein, at the focal point, a first peak amplitude of the first modulating is equal to a second peak amplitude of the second modulating.
33. The method as in claim 25, wherein the waveform comprises an interpolation of amplitude of at least one of the plurality of the ultrasonic transducers.
10. The method as in claim 1, wherein the waveform comprises an interpolation of amplitude of at least one of the plurality of the ultrasonic transducers.
34. The method of claim 25, further comprising: varying a position of the focal point.
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising: varying a position of the focal point.
35. A system comprising: a plurality of ultrasonic transducers for generation of a plurality of ultrasound waves, wherein at least two of the plurality of ultrasound waves form a focal point, wherein the focal point is a haptic feedback point; a first modulation of the generation of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a waveform to produce a haptic sensation at the haptic feedback point, which changes sound pressure to produce a less audible sound pressure level than would be produced at the haptic feedback point during a second modulation of the generation of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a square wave modulation pattern.
16. A system comprising: a plurality of ultrasonic transducers for generation of a plurality of ultrasound waves, wherein at least two of the plurality of ultrasound waves form a focal point, wherein the focal point is a haptic feedback point that produces a tactile sensation; a first modulation of the generation of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a waveform to produce a haptic sensation at the haptic feedback point by obtaining a modulation frequency that produces the haptic sensation, which produces less audible sound pressure level than would be produced at the haptic feedback point during a second modulation of the generation of the plurality of ultrasound waves using a square wave modulation pattern.
36. The system as in claim 35, wherein the waveform is varied according to a linear interpolation.
17. The system as in claim 16, wherein the waveform is varied according to a linear interpolation.
37. The system as in claim 35, wherein the waveform is varied according to a cosine interpolation.
18. The system as in claim 16, wherein the waveform is varied according to a cosine interpolation.
38. The system as in claim 35, wherein the waveform is varied according to a polynomial interpolation.
19. The system as in claim 16, wherein the waveform is varied according to a polynomial interpolation.
39. The system as in claim 35, wherein the waveform is varied according to trigonometric interpolation.
20. The system as in claim 16, wherein the waveform is varied according to trigonometric interpolation.
40. The system as in claim 35, wherein the waveform is varied according to a parametric speaker interpolation.
21. The system as in claim 16, wherein the waveform is varied according to a parametric speaker interpolation.
41. The system as in claim 35, wherein the square wave modulation pattern matches the modulation frequency of the waveform.
22. The system as in claim 16, wherein the square wave modulation pattern matches the modulation frequency of the waveform.
42. The system as in claim 35, wherein the waveform comprises an interpolation of phase of at least one of the plurality of the ultrasonic transducers.
24. The system as in claim 16, wherein the waveform comprises an interpolation of phase of at least one of the plurality of the ultrasonic transducers.
43. The system as in claim 35, wherein the waveform comprises an interpolation of amplitude of at least one of the plurality of the ultrasonic transducers.
25. The system as in claim 16, wherein the waveform comprises an interpolation of amplitude of at least one of the plurality of the ultrasonic transducers.
44. The system of claim 35, further comprising: variance of a position of the focal point.
28. The system of claim 16, further comprising: variance of a position of the focal point.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights