DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one or ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always liked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that"; and
(C) the term “means” (or “step”) or the generic placeholder is not limited by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the world “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means”, but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 9 recites “means for minimizing local stimulation”, which may be interpreted as: (1) “putting more energy in the frequency range above 400 Hz where mechanoreceptors are less sensitive” (para. [0070]); (2) “spreading the signal over a larger bandwidth” (para. [0071]); and (3) “induce lateral inhibition in the wrist … by using a very slowly varying stimulation or static pressure at a location very close to each transducer” (para. [0072]). Yet, Examiner notes that he finds no detailed description about what elements enable such 3 ways.
It also recites “while maximizing energy coupling into the flesh”, which may correspond to feature that “the transducer, its grounding, tactor/coupler can be selected to maximize energy transfer into the flesh over the entire frequency range in use” (para. [0061]), yet Examiner finds no detailed description about what elements enable such “selection”.
Claim 10 recites “means, located adjacent to at least some of the multiple transducers, for stimulating a lateral inhibition in one or more mechanoreceptor”, which may be interpreted as “using a very slowly varying stimulation or static pressure at a location very close to each transducer” (para. [0072]), i.e., the feature of (2) above recited in claim 9.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 9-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “means for minimizing local stimulation while maximizing energy coupling into the flesh”. As provided above, “means for minimizing local stimulation” may correspond to 3 ways, while “maximizing energy coupling into the flesh” is merely the advantageous (or desirable) effect. Examiner finds no specific support about how those 3 ways and the desirable effect can be achieved throughout the entire specification and the drawings of the present application. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot understand which feature out of the 3 ways claim 9 recites, and how the desirable effect is achieved, because no specific element enabling such desirable effect is described.
Accordingly, claim 9 is indefinite, and there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitation of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “means, located adjacent to at least some of the multiple transducers, for stimulating a lateral inhibition in one or more mechanoreceptor”. As provided above, “stimulating a lateral inhibition” may be interpreted as “using a very slowly varying stimulation or static pressure at a location very close to each transducer” (para. [0072]), yet the entire specification and the drawings are silent regarding how such “very slowly varying stimulation or static pressure” can be implemented. That is, claim 10 merely recites the “haptic device” comprise “means” for a desirable effect, but no specific element enabling such desirable effect is described.
Accordingly, claim 10 is indefinite, and there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitation of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites “independent control of two or more target vectors” while reciting “one or more target locations”. independent control of two or more target vectors” may be supported by the following:
[0046] To generate a desired strain field that stimulates a target mechanoreceptor at a distance from the source transducers, we can apply a combination of both low attenuation (to provide adequate displacements at a distance from the source) and a specific range of wavelengths. Wavelengths can be short enough to independently control to two or more nearby points while at the same time wavelengths can be long enough relative to structures within the channel medium to avoid significant scattering at boundaries which would make channel prediction very challenging.
[0056] After using this technique of starting with the desired strain field at the targeted type or group of mechanoreceptors and then calculating the required displacements on the surface, the next step can be to determine how to focus signals from an array of transducers which generate these surface displacements at the target. Transmitting a simple impulse, sine wave or any other type wave from a single actuator does not predictably generate the strain field required to stimulate an arbitrarily selected mechanoreceptor beyond its receptive field. Neither will any basic single point focusing techniques which work with this specific medium (heterogeneous dispersion with no scattering). Instead, we can use a beamforming technique capable of independently focusing to more than one target displacement vector. (Emphasis added by Examiner)
In view of above, it is likely that the limitation “one or more target locations” recited in claim 11 should be “two or more target locations”, i.e., “more than one”, because the inventive feature described by the support above is that (1) “two or more” target vectors independently control “different target locations” (concurrently and respectively). However, the limitations at issue may also be interpreted as (2) “two or more” vectors independently control “same target location” (sequentially), under the broadest reasonable interpretation. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot clearly understand which one claim 11 recites.
Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitations at issue as (2) above, for the purpose of compact prosecution only.
Claim 19 recites the similar limitation as in claim 9, i.e., “minimizing stimulation local” and “maximally transfer energy to the one or more target locations”, is indefinite for the same reason above, and there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitation of claim 19. Please see claim 9 for detailed analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claims 9-10 and 19, as provided above, thus it would not be proper to reject such claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Please see MPEP 2173.06 II.
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, 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller et al. (US 2019/0212824 A1).
As to claim 1, Keller discloses a haptics device (Keller, FIG. 4, [0109], “wearable device 102”) comprising:
an array of multiple transducers (Keller, FIG. 4, [0110], “transducer array 110”);
wherein one or more of the multiple transducers (Keller, FIG. 4, [0110], “transducer array 110”) transmit a specific mechanical waveform (Keller, FIG. 1, [0052], “the waves 116 are mechanical waves (e.g., sound waves, ultrasonic waves, or various other mechanical waves)”);
wherein two or more of the waveforms are selected such that, after propagating through a human body channel medium (Keller, e.g., FIG. 12, [0113], “oscillations or vibrations travel along (e.g., within) the wearer's body as a result of a wave 116 being generated by a transducer 410. The resulting oscillations or vibrations from the wave 116 are sometimes referred to herein as crawling waves (the “crawling wave phenomena”)”), the two or more of the waveforms combine at one or more target locations to generate one or more selected subsurface strains which deform one or more target mechanoreceptors (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0053], “the wearable device 102 adjusts one or more characteristics of the waves 116 such that the waves 116 converge at a predetermined location (e.g., a target location), resulting in a controlled constructive interference pattern. A haptic stimulation is felt by a wearer of the wearable device at the target location as a result of the controlled constructive interference pattern”; FIG. 9A, [0124], “In this example, the target location 912 is towards an upper portion of the user's hand 804”; it is reasonably inferred that the “target mechanoreceptors” may correspond to those of the “user's hand 804”); and
wherein the array of multiple transducers (Keller, FIG. 4, [0110], “transducer array 110”) are located remotely, from the one or more target locations of the mechanoreceptors (Keller, FIGS. 9A-9B, [0124], “transducer(s) 410A 410B” are located remotely from “target location 912”, i.e., “user's hand 804”), beyond the receptive fields of the mechanoreceptors (Keller, see FIGS. 9A-9B).
As to claim 3, Keller discloses the haptics device of claim 1, wherein each of the multiple transducers (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0052], “the transducers in a respective transducer array 110”) is a voice coil, bone conduction transducer, or piezo transducer (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0052], “are miniature piezoelectric actuators/devices, vibrotactile actuators, or the like”); and
wherein each of the multiple transducers (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0052], “transducer array 110”) has a frequency of operation between 50Hz and 1 kHz (Keller, [0142], “the waves are generated at a frequency range between 30 and 300 Hz”).
As to claim 4, Keller discloses the haptics device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the multiple transducers (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0052], “the transducers in a respective transducer array 110”) is a piezo transducer (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0052], “are miniature piezoelectric actuators/devices, vibrotactile actuators, or the like”) with a frequency of operation between 10kHz and 1MHz (Keller, [0142], “the waves are generated at a frequency range between 20 and 20,000 Hz”).
As to claim 5, Keller discloses the haptics device of claim 1, wherein the haptics device (Keller, FIG. 4, [0109], “wearable device 102”) is worn on a wrist of a user (Keller, see FIG. 4) and the one or more target locations are in a hand of the user (FIG. 9A, [0124], “In this example, the target location 912 is towards an upper portion of the user's hand 804”).
As to claim 7, Keller discloses the haptics device of claim 1, wherein the multiple transducers (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0052], “transducer array 110”) include at least eight transducers (Keller, e.g., see FIG. 4, 13 “transducer(s) 410”).
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 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 2, 11, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 2019/0212824 A1) in view of Beattie et al. (US 2024/0231492 A1).
As to claim 2, Keller does not teach the haptics device of claim 1, wherein generation of a selected subsurface strain is achieved by targeting two or more displacement vectors at the one or more target locations.
However, Beattie teaches the concept that generation of a selected subsurface strain is achieved (Beattie, e.g., FIG. 4, [0038], “These are holographic touches shown as points 440 on the index and middle fingers. The center of mass of the collision points X is shown as a point 430 on which a circle haptic si 420 is centered upon”) by targeting two or more displacement vectors at the one or more target locations (Beattie, e.g., FIG. 5, [0074], “GLCMs were computed for each image in the HaTT image data set. Firstly, an array of pixel distances (d=1, ..., 20) were defined, and matrices were produced at each distance step across displacement vectors (θ=0°, 45°, 90°, 135°) respectively”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “transducer array 110” taught by Keller to further utilize the “displacement vectors”, as taught by Beattie, in order to “seek to take a leap forward in mid-air haptic texture rendering by presenting a novel approach to producing congruent image-based visuo-haptic mid-air textures” (Beattie, [0012]).
As to claim 11, Keller teaches a method (Keller, FIG. 4, [0109], a method performed by “wearable device 102”) comprising:
determining waveforms (Keller, FIG. 1, [0052], “the waves 116 are mechanical waves (e.g., sound waves, ultrasonic waves, or various other mechanical waves)”) directed at one or more target locations (FIG. 9A, [0124], “In this example, the target location 912 is towards an upper portion of the user's hand 804”) to generate one or more selected subsurface strains which deform one or more target mechanoreceptors from a distance beyond the receptive fields of the one or more target mechanoreceptors (Keller, FIGS. 1-4, [0053], “the wearable device 102 adjusts one or more characteristics of the waves 116 such that the waves 116 converge at a predetermined location (e.g., a target location), resulting in a controlled constructive interference pattern. A haptic stimulation is felt by a wearer of the wearable device at the target location as a result of the controlled constructive interference pattern”; FIG. 9A, [0124], “In this example, the target location 912 is towards an upper portion of the user's hand 804”; it is reasonably inferred that the “target mechanoreceptors” may correspond to those of the “user's hand 804”); and
transmitting, by an array of multiple transducers (Keller, FIG. 4, [0110], “transducer array 110”), the determined waveforms that stimulate the one or more target mechanoreceptors (Keller, FIG. 1, [0053], “waves 116 converge at a predetermined location (e.g., a target location), resulting in a controlled constructive interference pattern. A haptic stimulation is felt by a wearer of the wearable device at the target location as a result of the controlled constructive interference pattern”).
Keller does not teach determining waveforms … “for independent control of two or more target vectors”.
However, Beattie teaches the concept of determining waveforms … “for independent control of two or more target vectors (Beattie, e.g., FIG. 5, [0074], “GLCMs were computed for each image in the HaTT image data set. Firstly, an array of pixel distances (d=1, . . . , 20) were defined, and matrices were produced at each distance step across displacement vectors (θ=0°, 45°, 90°, 135°) respectively”). Please see the combination reasoning for Keller in view of Beattie provided in claim 2 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 15, Beattie teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the determining waveforms includes calculating a target spatio-temporal displacement pattern by applying a simulation of one or more mechanoreceptors (Beattie, [0058], “Roughness features are often classified in two levels (macro/micro) due to the different mechanoreceptors activated following either spatial or temporal stimulation during surface exploration. For coarse surfaces with many macro-scale roughness features, neuro-physiology studies have shown that the spatial distribution of SA1 (Merkel) receptor cells contribute to the perception of roughness, but the temporal information due to skin vibration during dynamic exploration of a surface does not. Conversely, for fine (micro) surface textures, motion is a necessary part of the haptic perception. Specifically, FA1 (Meissner) and FA2 (Pacinian) receptor cells are related to the perception of fine roughness, and require dynamic stimulation to perceive any micro-roughness features”; FIG. 3, [0037], “Turning to FIG. 3, shown is a schematic 300 of the extraction of the displacement map 320 from a tile graphic 310 to produce a haptic effect 330”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 2.
As to claim 17, Keller teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the transmitting the determined waveforms includes spatial focusing waves utilizing dispersion of a channel (Keller, [0004], “Haptic or kinesthetic communication recreates the sense of touch by applying forces, vibrations, and/or motions to a user. Mechanically stimulating the skin may elicit long range responses, including waves that travel throughout a limb. The skin's/flesh's viscoelasticity yields frequency-dependent attenuation and dispersion. Such stimulation of the skin/flesh elicits traveling waves that can reach far distances, affecting tactile localization and perception”).
As to claim 18, Beattie teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the two or more target vectors are selected by determining a spatio-temporal displacement pattern, in the one or more target locations, which variably triggers one or more target mechanoreceptors (Beattie, [0058], “Roughness features are often classified in two levels (macro/micro) due to the different mechanoreceptors activated following either spatial or temporal stimulation during surface exploration. For coarse surfaces with many macro-scale roughness features, neuro-physiology studies have shown that the spatial distribution of SA1 (Merkel) receptor cells contribute to the perception of roughness, but the temporal information due to skin vibration during dynamic exploration of a surface does not. Conversely, for fine (micro) surface textures, motion is a necessary part of the haptic perception. Specifically, FA1 (Meissner) and FA2 (Pacinian) receptor cells are related to the perception of fine roughness, and require dynamic stimulation to perceive any micro-roughness features”; FIG. 3, [0037], “Turning to FIG. 3, shown is a schematic 300 of the extraction of the displacement map 320 from a tile graphic 310 to produce a haptic effect 330”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 6, the closest known prior art, i.e., Keller et al. (US 2019/0212824 A1), Beattie et al. (US 2024/0231492 A1), Kappus et al. (US 2018/0310111 A1), Carter et al. (US 2024/0021072 A1) and Vezzoli (US 2019/0227633 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “the one or more target locations are on a face of a user wearing the head-mounted device”.
As to claim 8, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the one or more target mechanoreceptors are rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors”.
As to claim 12, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the two or more target vectors are determined by calculating surface displacement vectors which result in a desired subsurface strain field which maximally stimulates the target one or more mechanoreceptors”.
As to claims 13-14, they depend from claim 12, and are allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 16, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein determining a waveform for each of two or more of the multiple transducers, is performed by determining an orthogonal basis between the two or more target vectors”.
As to claim 20, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the determining the waveforms include adding one or more suppression waveforms, to inhibit local stimulation local to the multiple transducers, with an amplitude between 1 time and 5 times greater than corresponding waveforms that focus the target vectors on the one or more target locations”.
As to claim 21, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the determining the waveforms include providing one or more suppression waveforms, to inhibit local stimulation local to the multiple transducers, that precede or are synchronized with corresponding waveforms that focus the target vectors on the one or more target locations”.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Kappus et al. (US 2018/0310111 A1) teaches the concept of “improved algorithm techniques for superior operation of haptic-based systems” (Abs.); Carter et al. (US 2024/0021072 A1) teaches the concept of “system providing various improved calibration techniques for haptic feedback” (Abs.); and Vezzoli (US 2019/0227633 A1) teaches the concept of “a haptic device for interaction with virtual reality or augmented reality systems” (Abs.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LunYi Lao can be reached on (571) 272-7671. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Dec. 9, 2025
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
***