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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Songatikamas et al. (US 2018/0085786 A1).
RE claim 1, Songatikamas teaches a device 100 providing a haptic tactile sensation (Fig.1-5 and ¶ 18), comprising: a haptic module 10 implementing a haptic tactile sensation (¶ 19); and a control unit 607 transmitting an operation signal of the haptic module (¶ 35); wherein the haptic module 10 is applied to a surface (of glass 102) of the device to be in contact with a user (Fig.1), and provides a haptic tactile sensation to a user according to a signal transmitted by the control unit corresponding to various operation situations (¶ 19).
RE claim 2/1, Songatikamas teaches the device the device is any one of a game console, a joystick, a mouse, a keyboard, a tablet, and a smartphone (¶ 19).
RE claim 3/1, Songatikamas teaches a plurality of the haptic modules (504, 506) are respectively applied to a surface of the device (see Fig.5 for a plurality of magnetic cores).
RE claim 4/1, Songatikamas teaches a plurality of the haptic modules (504, 506) provide a haptic tactile sensation for a plurality of areas on a single horizontal plane (Fig.5).
RE claim 5/3, Songatikamas teaches the device has a three-dimensional surface (¶ 31 and Fig.4), and the plurality of haptic modules are respectively applied to the three- dimensional surface to provide haptic tactile sensation in different directions on the three-dimensional surface (¶ 30, 31)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Songatikamas in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0241643 A1).
RE claim 6/1, Kim teaches the haptic module comprises: a haptic device including a housing 602 (Fig.6 and ¶ 34), a magnetic field generation unit 603 disposed in the housing 602, a fixing unit 508 (Fig.5) that fixes the haptic device (504, 506).
Songatikamas does not teaches a vibration unit including an elastic material in which magnetic particles are dispersed in a matrix and a tactile transmission unit that transmits a haptic sensation generated by the haptic device.
Kim does not teach a vibration unit including an elastic material in which magnetic particles (ferrite particles) are dispersed in a matrix (Fig.8 and ¶ 102); a tactile transmission unit 320 that transmits a haptic sensation generated by the haptic device (¶ 102, 103, 114), such that properties thereof, such as stiffness, tensile strength, elongation rate, and the like, may be changed by the application of an external magnetic field. The haptic unit may be in the shape of at least one of a fine projection, a hollow cylinder, a polyhedron, such as a dome, a plate, a seesaw, and a tunnel (¶ 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Songatikamas by having a vibration unit including an elastic material in which magnetic particles are dispersed in a matrix and a tactile transmission unit that transmits a haptic sensation generated by the haptic device, as taught by Kim, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 7/6, as discussed above, Kim teaches the surface (of cover 310) of the device 300 functions as a cover portion connected to the tactile transmission unit 320.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Songatikamas in view of Kim as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Colgate et al. (US 2020/0249761 A1).
RE claim 8/6, Songatikamas has been discussed above. Songatikamas does not teach a vibration force at a contact portion between the tactile transmission unit and the haptic device is greater than that of other portions, thereby providing localized haptic tactile sensations.
It is noted that limitation “a vibration force at a contact portion between the tactile transmission unit and the haptic device is greater than that of other portions” is a method of operating the haptic device. As user press on one specific surface, such surface would necessarily have greater vibration force compare to other portion.
MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
Colgate teaches a vibration force at a contact portion between the tactile transmission unit and the haptic device is greater than that of other portions (see ¶ 8), thereby providing localized haptic tactile sensations (¶ 3), doing so provides the user a sensation of a pressing, engaging and/or clicking of a button, switch and/or key (¶ 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Songatikamas in view of Kim by having a vibration force at a contact portion between the tactile transmission unit and the haptic device is greater than that of other portions, thereby providing localized haptic tactile sensations, as taught by Colgate, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights