DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for app no. 19052122 on December 12, 2025. Please note claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
America Invents Act
2. 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 § 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-4, 13-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 20230052986 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses: A haptics device (Fig. 11-12; para [0068], discloses the SMA haptic assembly 2; para[0080]) comprising:
a moving bow (see annotated Fig. 12 below, [0068],[0080], moving bow 4);
a fixed bow (see annotated Fig. 12 below, [0068],[0080], fixed bow 6) disposed opposite to the moving bow (see Fig. 11-12), wherein the fixed bow is configured to be fixed to a base (see annotated Fig. 12 below, fixed bow 6 is fixed to the base/housing/support), wherein the moving bow and the fixed bow arc connected only at each of a first end and a second end of each of the moving bow and the fixed bow (see annotated Fig. 12 below, connection arrangement of the fixed bow 6 and moving bow 4 at the first contact end and second contact end); and
a shape memory alloy (SMA) element disposed between the fixed bow and the moving bow (10, Fig.11-12; para [0069] discloses the SMA haptic assembly 2 further comprises a length of SMA wire 10, each of the ends of the length of SMA wire 10 being connected to the first part 4 or second part 6; para[0074]).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein each of the moving bow and the fixed bow include a flat portion at each of the first end and the second end, and a central portion between the flat portions at the first end and the second end, wherein a distance between the moving bow and the fixed bow at the central portion is greater than a distance between the moving bow and the fixed bow at the flat portions at the each of the first end and the second end (see annotated Fig. 12, the arrangement of the moving bow 4 and fixed bow 6 of the haptic device as illustrated in annotated Fig. 12 above).
Regarding claim 3, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 2. Brown further teaches wherein the SMA element connects at the first end of the fixed bow and the second end of the fixed bow (see Fig. 11, annotated Fig. 12 above, SMA wire 10 connected to first contact end and second contact end of the fixed bow 6).
Regarding claim 4, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 3. Brown further teaches a set of spacers (18, Fig. 11-12; para[0085]; para[0101], connection elements 18/connection portion 5) disposed between the moving bow and the fixed bow at each of the first end and at the second ends of the moving bow and the fixed bow (see Fig. 11-12), wherein the set of spacers are configured to electrically isolate any of the SMA element, the fixed bow, and the moving bow (Fig. 11-12; para [0101] discloses electrical isolation between the points at which the length of SMA wire 10 is connected to the first or second parts 4, 6 could be achieved by insulating one of the connection elements 18 from the first or second part 4, 6 to which they are attached ... Alliteratively, both of the connection elements 18 could be insulated from the one of the first mid second parts 4, 6 to which they are attached).
Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein the haptics device is part of a haptics interface system configured to provide neuro-sensory feedback signals (Fig. 11-12 - see how the haptics device 2 can be part of a haptics interface system capable of providing neuro-sensory feedback signals; para[0067], 'The SMA haptic assembly 2 may be used in applications such as mobile telephones, wearable devices, cameras, computer accessories such as trackpads, media players, portable digital assistants (PDAs), or other mobile devices).
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses: An actuator configured to be part of a haptics system (2, Fig. 11-12; para[0068] discloses the SMA haptic assembly 2; para[0080]), the actuator comprising:
a moving bow configured to move (see annotated Fig. 12 above, [0068],[0080], moving bow 4);
a fixed bow (see annotated Fig. 12 above, [0068],[0080], fixed bow 6) fixed to a base (see annotated Fig. 12 above, fixed bow 6 is fixed to the base/housing/support), wherein each of the moving bow and the fixed bow include a flat portion at each of a first end and a second end (see annotated Fig. 12 above, flat portions moving bow 5 and fixed bow 6 at first end and second end as illustrated in figure) and a central portion extending from the flat portion and angled relative to the flat portion (see annotated Fig. 12, curved portion of the moving bow 4), wherein the moving bow and the fixed bow arc connected only at each of a first end and a second end of each of the moving bow and the fixed bow (see annotated Fig. 12 above, connection arrangement of the fixed bow 6 and moving bow 4 at the first contact end and second contact end)
a set of spacers (Fig. 11-12; para [0085]; para[0101], connection elements 18/connection portion 5) disposed between the moving bow and the fixed bow at each of the first end and at the second ends of the moving bow and the fixed bow (Fig. 11-12; para[0085]; para[0101]); and
at least one shape memory alloy (SMA) wire disposed between the fixed bow and the moving bow (10, Fig. 11-12; para [0069] discloses the SMA haptic assembly 2 further comprises a length of SMA wire 10, each of the ends of the length of SMA wire 10 being connected to the first part 4 or second part 6; para[0074]).
Regarding claim 15, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 14. Brown further teaches wherein the set of spacers are configured to electrically isolate the at least one SMA wire from the moving bow (Fig. 11-12; para [0101] discloses electrical isolation between the points at which the length of SMA wire 10 is connected to the first or second parts 4, 6 could be achieved by insulating one of the connection elements 18 from the first or second part 4, 6 to which they are attached ... Alternatively, both of the connection elements 18 could be insulated from the one of the first mid second parts 4, 6 to which they are attached).
Regarding claim 16, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 14. Brown further teaches wherein each of the at least one SMA wire connects at a first end at the first end of the fixed bow and at a second end at the second end of the fixed bow (see Fig. 11, annotated Fig. 12 above, SMA wire 10 connected to first contact end and second contact end of the fixed bow 6).
Regarding claim 19, Brown discloses: A method for manufacturing an actuator (2, Fig. 11-12; para [0068] discloses the SMA haptic assembly 2; para [0080]), the method comprising:
affixing a fixed bow to a base (see annotated Fig. 12 above, [0068],[0080], fixed bow 6);
disposing a SMA element to the fixed bow (see annotated Fig. 12 above. [0069] and [0074], connection arrangement of SMA wire 10 to fixed bow 6); and
connecting a moving bow to the fixed bow (see annotated Fig. 12 above, connection arrangement of fixed bow 6 and moving bow 4) , wherein each of the moving bow and the fixed bow comprise a flat portion and angled portions extending from the flat portion angled relative to the flat portion (see annotated Fig. 12 above, shape and arrangement/connection of moving bow 4 and fixed bow 6), wherein the moving bow and the fixed bow are connected only at the first ends and/or the second ends of the fixed bow and moving bow (see annotated Fig. 12 below, connection arrangement of the fixed bow 6 and moving bow 4 at the first contact end and second contact end).
Regarding claim 20, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 19. Brown further teaches disposing a set of spacers (18, Fig. 11-12; para[0085]; para [0101], connection elements 18/connection portion 5) between the fixed bow and the moving bow at any of the first end and second ends (Fig. 11-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20230052986 A1) in view of Matsuki (US 20120180474 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown further teaches the SMA element can include an insulating coating disposed around the SMA element (Fig. 11-12; para[0023], the length of SMA wire and/or the at least one contact portion of the one of the first and second parts is coated with said insulating material. Insulating coatings are readily available and methods for applying them to wire or sheet materials are well-known; para[0102], 'One approach to preventing the metal sheet material from shorting out the length of SMA wire 10 is to provide additional insulating material to insulate the metal sheet material from the length of SMA wire 10; para[0103], 'the length of SMA wire 10 and/or the at least one contact portion 8 of the one of the first and second parts 4, 6 is coated with said insulating material 11); but does not specially teach the device further comprising: a sheath disposed around the SMA element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the SMA actuator, Matsuki teaches a sheath disposed around the SMA element (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3; para [0039] discloses a shape memory alloy actuator 1 comprising a sheath i. e., tube member 11 disposed around an SMA element 3).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Brown and Matsuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMA element of haptic device as taught by Brown by employing the insulating sheath disposed around the SMA element as taught by Matsuki in order to have prevented electrical shorts, which would have been a competitive advantages.
Regarding claim 7, Brown in view of Matsuki teaches the limitations of parent claim 5. Matsuki further teaches wherein a diameter of the sheath is greater than a diameter of the SMA element (see Figs. 1-3, sec how the tube element 11 has a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the wire 1, since the tube surrounds the wire).
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown does not explicitly teach wherein the device comprises two SMA elements, with each SMA element being disposed on an opposing side of the device. wherein the device comprises two SMA elements, with each SMA element being disposed on an opposing side of the device (see Fig. 5, [0050]-[0051], discloses the shape memory alloy actuator comprises the SMA wire 7 and 5 disposed on an opposing side of the device).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Brown and Matsuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMA element of haptic device as taught by Brown with Matsuki’s teachings of wherein the device comprises two SMA elements, with each SMA element being disposed on an opposing side of the device as alternative design of SMA haptic device, and improve controllability of an amount of distortion and educe electric power consumption.
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20230052986 A1) in view of Matsuki (US 20120180474 A1), further in view of Ooi et al. (US 20210365120 A1) .
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Matsuki teaches the limitations of parent claim 5. Brown and Matsuki do not explicitly teach a grease disposed between the sheath and the SMA element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the SMA haptic device, Ooi teaches a grease disposed between the sheath and the SMA element (see Fig. 29C, [0206]-[0210], discloses fluid 2958 may be an oil, mineral oil, silicone-based fluids, glycol-based fluids, water, gas, air, or an inert gas (e.g. nitrogen) disposed between the housing 2956 (i.e. sheath) and SMA actuator wire).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Brown, Matsuki and Ooi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify haptic device as taught by Brown and Matsuki with Ooi’s teachings of a grease disposed between the sheath and the SMA element in order to use hydraulic mechanism to transfer the motion of SMA actuator to button/touch surface and reduce the friction in the device.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20230052986 A1) in view of Ooi et al. (US 20210365120 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown does not explicitly teach wherein a sealed cavity is formed between the moving bow and the fixed bow, and wherein a fluid is configured to be disposed in the sealed cavity, wherein the fluid comprises any of: oil, water, a water and glycol mixture, a thermally conductive grease, silicone, or ammonia.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the SMA haptic device, Ooi teaches wherein a sealed cavity is formed between the moving bow and the fixed bow, and wherein a fluid is configured to be disposed in the sealed cavity, wherein the fluid comprises any of: oil, water, a water and glycol mixture, a thermally conductive grease, silicone, or ammonia (see Fig. 29C, [0206]-[0210], discloses haptic assembly 2950 comprises a sealed cavity formed between the intermediate moveable element 2954 and one end to the housing 2956, and fluid 2958 may be an oil, mineral oil, silicone-based fluids, glycol-based fluids, water, gas, air, or an inert gas (e.g. nitrogen) disposed in the sealed cavity).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Brown and Ooi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify haptic device as taught by Brown Ooi’s teachings of a sealed cavity is formed between the moving bow and the fixed bow, and wherein a fluid is configured to be disposed in the sealed cavity, wherein the fluid comprises any of: oil, water, a water and glycol mixture, a thermally conductive grease, silicone, or ammonia in order to use hydraulic mechanism to transfer the motion of SMA actuator to button/touch surface and reduce the friction in the device.
10. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20230052986 A1) in view of Minebea (JP2014088811 (A), please note Minebea reference is provided in IDS and machine translation is used for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 9, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown does not specifically teach a set of leads formed on any of the fixed bow and the base, wherein the set of leads are configured to provide a current to the SMA element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the SMA device, Minebea teaches a similar device (1, Fig. 1a-1b; para[0027], actuator 1) comprising a set of leads (C 1, C2, Fig. 1a-1b; para[0068]) formed on any of the fixed bow and the base (Fig. 1a-1b - see how the leads C1/C2 are formed on the fixed bow 2), wherein the set of leads are configured to provide a current to the SMA element (4, via screws n1, n2, Fig. 1a-1b; para[0027], a shape memory alloy wire 4; para[0068], the actuator 1 is completed by connecting the electrical connection wires C1 and C2 to the electrodes 7a and 7b protruding below the stator 2, respectively).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Brown and Minebea, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the leads arrangement of Brown device by employing the set of leads as taught by Minebea, such that electrical leads were provided for attachment to the SMA wire because it would have been necessary for the heating of the wire that leads be provided to a power source, which would have been a competitive advantage since the Cambridge device would not function without electrical power to the wire.
Regarding claim 17: claim 17 recites the similar limitations as in claim 9. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected on the same ground of obviousness as used above for claim 9.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20230052986 A1) in view of Jiangxi (WO2022193583A1).
Regarding claim 11, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown does not explicitly teach one or more fasteners connecting the base and the fixed bow, wherein the fasteners comprise rivets or screws.
However, in the same field of endeavor of touch/vibration feedback device, Jiangxi teaches one or more fasteners connecting the base and the fixed bow, wherein the fasteners comprise rivets or screws (see Figs. 1-2, [0078], discloses touch feedback module 100 comprises the connecting members such as screws 84 for connecting the base 80 and fixed bow 20).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Brown and Jiangxi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastening arrangement between the base and fixed bow of haptic device as taught by Brown with Jiangxi’s teachings of one or more fasteners connecting the base and the fixed bow, wherein the fasteners comprise rivets or screws in order to provide a simple and effective arrangement for releasably and securely coupling the base and fixed bow.
12. Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20230052986 A1) in view of Brown (WO 2022263833 A1, hereinafter Brown-33).
Regarding claim 12, Brown teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Brown does not explicitly teach a formed compression bumper extending from the moving bow toward the fixed bow; and a base compression bumper extending from base through the fixed bow and extending toward the moving bow.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the SMA device, Brown-33 teaches a formed compression bumper extending from the moving bow toward the fixed bow; and a base compression bumper extending from base through the fixed bow and extending toward the moving bow (see Fig. 3, page 5-6, contact portion 104 and 105 of SMA actuator assembly 100).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Brown and Brown-33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify haptic device as taught by Brown with Brown-33’s teachings of a formed compression bumper extending from the moving bow toward the fixed bow; and a base compression bumper extending from base through the fixed bow and extending toward the moving bow in order to provide end-stops that limit relative movement of the two bows towards each other.
Regarding claim 18: claim 18 recites the similar limitations as in claim 12. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected on the same ground of obviousness as used above for claim 12.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amended claims. Specifically, applicant argues that Brown fails to teach or suggest the limitations of “the moving bow and the fixed bow are connected only at each of a first end and a second end of each of the moving bow and the fixed bow”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Brown Fig. 11, Fig. 12 teaches the SMA haptic assembly device comprises the fixed bow 6, moving bow 4 connected at the first contact end and second contact end of the haptic deice, and SMA wire 10 is connected between the first contact end and second contact end which provides the haptic feedback by deforming the SMA element as illustrated in the annotated Fig. 12 above. As such, applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive. See above rejections for full detail.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA P. NEUPANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7291. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/KRISHNA P NEUPANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights