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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/05/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how small the power consumption needs to be to be considered substantially small. The scope of the term could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
The term “negligible” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “negligible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how small the power consumption needs to be to be considered negligible small. The scope of the term could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 12, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. [US 11009908].
As to claim 1. Huang discloses A method for receiving user input from a client device, wherein the client device comprises a sensor, [fig. 1A, col. 3, lines 50-55] MEMS accelerometer 120, a vibration input element, [fig. 1A, B, col. 4, lines 11-24] textured surface 130, and a weight, [fig. 1B, col. 4, line 61 – col. 5, line 14] material 170 with weight, and the method comprises:
receiving sensor data from the sensor of the client device, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 14-23], wherein the sensor data indicates vibrations produced by a contact between the vibration input element and the weight, [fig. 1B, col. 5, line 6-15] vibration due to user input through the surface 130 and the material 170;
analyzing a vibration pattern produced by the contact between the vibration input element and the weight, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 24-29];
identifying a vibration profile based on the vibration pattern, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 29-31] if there is a match, next step is performed;
determining an action to be performed based on the vibration profile with respect to an application executed by the client device, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 47-56] action associated with matched set is determined; and
causing the action to be performed in relation to the application, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 47-56] perform the action.
As to claim 5. Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein:
the application comprises a musical application, [col. 3, lines 49-52] device 100 is a smart phone, [col. 8, lines 47-56] input used as input for applications on the device; wherein a musical application is a common application on a smart phone;
the analyzing the vibration pattern comprises determining characteristics of the vibration pattern, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 24-29]; and
the determining the action comprises adjusting a volume based on the characteristics of the vibration pattern, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 47-56].
As to claim 7. Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein:
the receiving the sensor data comprises receiving data from a plurality of sensors including the sensor and at least one additional sensor, [col. 3, lines 56-63] accelerometers;
the analyzing the vibration pattern comprises analyzing a combination of the vibration pattern and additional sensor data from the at least one additional sensor, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 14-31]; and
the determining the action to be performed based on both the vibration pattern and the additional sensor data, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 47-48].
As to claim 12. Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the vibration input element is configured as a mechanically driven structure that produces vibrations through a mechanical actuation, [fig. 1B, col. 5, line 6-15] vibration due to user input through the surface 130 and the material 170, and the vibration input element exhibits substantially negligible power consumption during operation, the mechanical movement is produced by the user, and [col. 3, lines 56-59] the input element uses a ultra-low power accelerometer.
As to claim 15. Huang discloses A system comprising:
a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of vibrations, [fig. 1A, col. 3, lines 50-55] MEMS accelerometer 120, produced by a contact between a vibration input element and a weight of a client device, [fig. 1B, col. 5, line 6-15] vibration due to user input through the surface 130 and the material 170;
one or more processors, [fig. 6, col. 8, lines 57-62] processor 610; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, [fig. 6, col. 9, lines 29-41] memory 620, comprising:
the steps as claimed in claim 1, and c.
As to claim 18, is rejected using the same prior arts and reasonings as to that of claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hwang et al. [US 20110025479].
As to claim 2. Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein:
the analyzing the vibration pattern comprises comparing the vibration pattern to a first vibration profile corresponding to a first pattern set and a second vibration profile corresponding to a second pattern set, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 24-45];
the vibration profile is identified based on determining that the vibration pattern corresponds to the first vibration profile, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 24-45]; and
the determining the action to be performed based on the first vibration profile, [fig. 5, col. 8, lines 47-56] action associated with matched set is determined.
Huang fails to disclose wherein the first and second pattern sets are a first and second hold position of the client device.
Hwang teaches an apparatus and method for generating a vibration pattern comprising a spring coupled to a weight, [fig. 12, 0171]; wherein a plurality of vibration profiles are detected based on the position of the input device, [0095], including a button or wheel, [0225].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Huang with that of Hwang so that different patterns can be created using the position of the input device which will provide easily recognizable feedback to the user.
As to claims 16, 19 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Gleeson et al. [US 20190339804].
As to claim 4. Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein:
the vibration pattern comprises the contact between the vibration input element and the weight, [fig. 1B, col. 5, line 6-15] vibration due to user input through the surface 130 and the material 170.
Huang fails to disclose wherein the pattern comprises an intensity of the contact between the vibration elements; the identifying the vibration profile comprises at least a strong press and a weak press; and determining the action to be performed based on whether the vibration profile corresponds to the strong press or the weak press.
Gleeson teaches a device and method for interacting with an intensity-sensitive input comprising a vibration input, [0392]; wherein the device uses vibration sensors that detect the intensity of contact between the user finger and the input object, [0392], including a soft click and normal click, [0074, 0075]; and determines the action to be performed based on the intensity of the click, [0074, 0075].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Huang with that if Gleeson so that the system can use the same input element for a plurality of input commands.
As to claim 17, 20 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
As to claim 6. Huang fails to explicitly disclose The method of claim 5, wherein the determining the action further comprises adjusting a secondary characteristic of a note that includes at least one of warble and timbre.
Huang teaches that the vibration input is implemented on a device 100 such as a smart phone [col. 3, lines 49-52]; wherein the input is used as input for applications on the device to modify application settings, [col. 8, lines 47-56]; wherein a musical application is a common application on a smart phone.
Adjusting a tone, and other characteristics of an audio of a musical application is a common setting that is adjusted using the available input methods for the device; wherein one of ordinary skilled in the art can easily implement the available input elements as an input to control any aspect of the settings for the application.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Huang to implement the vibrational input to control a characteristic of an audio output application as nothing but a simple substitution of one input element with another to obtain predictable result.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11126266. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the patent is within the scope of claims 1 and 2 of the current application.
Claim 13 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11126266. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 6 of the patent is within the scope of claim 13 of the current application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-11 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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights