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 1-18 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In addition:
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “substantially flat”. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the term “substantially” with regards to the adaptive region, because at least a part of the adaptive region, as claimed, is configured to be raised. What is “substantially flat” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be “substantially flat” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the haptic softness tactile cue". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons as claim 2 because of their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “comprises or consists of” which renders the claims indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “comprises”, and the claim also recites “consists of” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4 and 6 recite the limitation "the/said second pressure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5 and 9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons as claim 4 because of their dependency on claim 4.
Claims 5, 7, 11, and 15 recite the limitation "said/the inflatable-deflatable region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons as claim 5 because of its dependency on claim 5. Claims 8 and 10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons as claim 7 because of its dependency on claim 7. Claims 16-17 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons as claim 15 because of their dependency on claim 15.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the limitation "said second fluid pressure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-17 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons as claim 15 because of their dependency on claim 15.
The terms “rigid” in claim 7 and “soft” in claim 8 are a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “rigid” and “soft” are 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. What is rigid to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be rigid to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said second fluid pressure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the force sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above and because of their dependency on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (U.S. 2023/0118358 A1).
Claim 1, Horiuchi teaches:
A multimodal haptic device (Horiuchi, Figs. 1-3: 100) for rendering cutaneous and kinesthetic tactile cues of a target based on contact with a body part of a user (Horiuchi, Paragraphs [0133-0136], Based on the positions of the flat plate member 103 and the projecting member 104, different haptic sensations can be felt by the finger F. The haptic sensation felt by the finger F is functionally equivalent to a cutaneous and kinesthetic tactile cue.), comprising:
-an actuator (Horiuchi, Fig. 3: 102) configured to be contacted by the body part of the user (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C: “F”, The user’s finger contacts the film 102.);
-a support movable unit (Horiuchi, Figs. 1-3: 104) in operative connection with the actuator (Horiuchi, Figs. 18, 30, 35B, In the example figures, the projecting member 104 is configured to move in the Z-axis direction to engage with film 102.), to move the actuator in one direction of a force applied by the body part to the actuator or in an opposite direction (Horiuchi, Paragraph [0116], The projecting member 104 is movable independently of the flat plate member 103. In the example of Fig. 35B, the protruding portions of projecting member 104 push the film 102 past the opening surface 101c, i.e. in an opposite direction (see Horiuchi, Fig. 35B: 104b, Paragraphs [0170-0171]). The Examiner notes that in the example of Fig. 18A, the flat plate member 103 and the projecting member 104 are lowered in the same direction as the force applied by finger F.),
-the actuator includes a contact region, configured to receive said force by the body part (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, Paragraph [0110], The film 102 is joined around the peripheral edge 101b of the casing 101 and closes the opening 101a. The contact region is therefore any portion, e.g. the center portion, of the film 102 that closes the opening. As seen in Figs. 18A-18C, the user’s finger F contacts the film 102. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would recognize that the finger F can contact any exposed part of the film 102.), and at least one adaptive region, arranged at least in part around the contact region (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, Depending on the location on the film 102 with which the finger F touches, the portion of film 102 surrounding the contact point of the film 102 is equivalent to an adaptive region.) and substantially flat at rest (Horiuchi, Fig. 3, As seen in the figure, the film 102 is flat at rest. Contrastingly, as seen in Fig. 35B, when the projecting member 104 engages the film 102, the film 102 is no longer flat.);
the device further including a controller (Horiuchi, Figs. 26, 27: 122) configured to
-set a first actuation input for the actuator to maintain at least part of said adaptive region with respect to the contact region, wherein, in use, the haptic softness tactile cue of the target is rendered by means of a surface of said at least part of the maintained adaptive region contacting the body part (Horiuchi, Fig. 18A, Paragraph [0134], When the flat plate member 103 and the projecting member 104 are not in contact with the film 102, a soft flat haptic sensation by the film 102 can be achieved.);
-drive the support movable unit to move the actuator in said at least one direction or opposite direction, wherein, in use, the haptic kinesthetic tactile cue of the target is rendered by a force applied to the body part by the actuator in said opposite direction (Horiuchi, Figs. 29B-29C, 33B, 35B, Paragraphs [0163-0165], [0167-0168], and [0171], Figs. 29B-29C, 33B, 35B show a plurality of different movements of the film 102 that cause a plurality of haptic sensations.).
Horiuchi does not explicitly teach:
Set a first actuation input for the actuator to raise at least part of said adaptive region with respect to the contact region, wherein, in use, the haptic softness tactile cue of the target is rendered by means of a surface of said at least part of the raised adaptive region contacting the body part.
However, in embodiments wherein piston ring 108 and valve 109 create a sealed space S1 (see Horiuchi, Figs. 29B and 29C) or pump 110 creates a space S2 (see Horiuchi, Fig. 33B), the film 102 can be expanded, i.e. raised, while preventing the film 102 from being in contact with either flat plate member 103 or projecting member 104. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would recognize that the haptic sensation experienced by a finger F would be similar, e.g. soft, to the haptic sensation experienced by the finger F when the film 102 is not in contact with either flat plate member 103 or projecting member 104 (see Horiuchi, Fig. 18A, Paragraph [0134]) because the finger F pressing on film 102 would not be stopped by either flat plate member 103 or projecting member 104 (see Horiuchi, Figs. 18B-18C). The Examiner notes, for example, that if the finger F were to contact near the outer edge of the film 102 (but within the casing 101), the center of the film 102 would be interpretable as part of the adaptive region which would be raised relative to the contact point of the finger F. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended function and would yield predictable results.
Claim 12, Horiuchi teaches:
A method for rendering cutaneous and kinesthetic tactile cues of a target (Horiuchi, Paragraphs [0133-0136], Based on the positions of the flat plate member 103 and the projecting member 104, different haptic sensations can be felt by the finger F. The haptic sensation felt by the finger F is functionally equivalent to a cutaneous and kinesthetic tactile cue.), comprising:
-contacting an actuator (Horiuchi, Fig. 3: 102) with a body part to which the cutaneous and kinesthetic tactile cues of the target have to be rendered (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C: “F”, The user’s finger contacts the film 102.), the actuator being arranged in operative connection with (Horiuchi, Figs. 18, 30, 35B, In the example figures, the projecting member 104 is configured to move in the Z-axis direction to engage with film 102.) a support movable unit (Horiuchi, Figs. 1-3: 104);
-moving the actuator in at least one direction of a force applied by said body part to the actuator (Horiuchi, Paragraph [0116], The projecting member 104 is movable independently of the flat plate member 103. In the example of Fig. 35B, the protruding portions of projecting member 104 push the film 102 past the opening surface 101c, i.e. in an opposite direction (see Horiuchi, Fig. 35B: 104b, Paragraphs [0170-0171]). The Examiner notes that in the example of Fig. 18A, the flat plate member 103 and the projecting member 104 are lowered in the same direction as the force applied by finger F.);
the actuator includes an adaptive region (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, Depending on the location on the film 102 with which the finger F touches, the portion of film 102 surrounding the contact point of the film 102 is equivalent to an adaptive region.) arranged at least in part around a contact region (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, Paragraph [0110], The film 102 is joined around the peripheral edge 101b of the casing 101 and closes the opening 101a. The contact region is therefore any portion, e.g. the center portion, of the film 102 that closes the opening. As seen in Figs. 18A-18C, the user’s finger F contacts the film 102. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would recognize that the finger F can contact any exposed part of the film 102.), said adaptive region being substantially flat at rest, before contact of said body part with the actuator (Horiuchi, Fig. 3, As seen in the figure, the film 102 is flat at rest. Contrastingly, as seen in Fig. 35B, when the projecting member 104 engages the film 102, the film 102 is no longer flat.),
wherein a controller of the device (Horiuchi, Figs. 26, 27: 122) executes the following steps upon contact between the body part and the actuator:
- setting a first actuation input for the actuator to maintain at least part of the adaptive region with respect to the contact region wherein, in use, the haptic softness tactile cue of the target is rendered by means of a surface of said at least part of the maintained adaptive region contacting the user's body part (Horiuchi, Fig. 18A, Paragraph [0134], When the flat plate member 103 and the projecting member 104 are not in contact with the film 102, a soft flat haptic sensation by the film 102 can be achieved.);
-driving the support movable unit to move the actuator in said at least one direction or in an opposite direction with a force, thereby providing a tactile kinesthetic cue to the body part (Horiuchi, Figs. 29B-29C, 33B, 35B, Paragraphs [0163-0165], [0167-0168], and [0171], Figs. 29B-29C, 33B, 35B show a plurality of different movements of the film 102 that cause a plurality of haptic sensations.).
Horiuchi does not explicitly teach:
Setting a first actuation input for the actuator to raise at least part of the adaptive region with respect to the contact region wherein, in use, the haptic softness tactile cue of the target is rendered by means of a surface of said at least part of the raised adaptive region contacting the user's body part.
However, in embodiments wherein piston ring 108 and valve 109 create a sealed space S1 (see Horiuchi, Figs. 29B and 29C) or pump 110 creates a space S2 (see Horiuchi, Fig. 33B), the film 102 can be expanded, i.e. raised, while preventing the film 102 from being in contact with either flat plate member 103 or projecting member 104. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would recognize that the haptic sensation experienced by a finger F would be similar, e.g. soft, to the haptic sensation experienced by the finger F when the film 102 is not in contact with either flat plate member 103 or projecting member 104 (see Horiuchi, Fig. 18A, Paragraph [0134]) because the finger F pressing on film 102 would not be stopped by either flat plate member 103 or projecting member 104 (see Horiuchi, Figs. 18B-18C). The Examiner notes, for example, that if the finger F were to contact near the outer edge of the film 102 (but within the casing 101), the center of the film 102 would be interpretable as part of the adaptive region which would be raised relative to the contact point of the finger F. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended function and would yield predictable results.
Claim 18, Horiuchi further teaches:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the target rendered is a stationary, dynamic, homogeneous or heterogeneous surface of a virtual or real object (Horiuchi, Paragraphs [0134-0136], Soft or hard haptic sensations represent stationary virtual objects where as a haptic sensation represents a dynamic virtual objects.).
Claims 2, 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (U.S. 2023/0118358 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2016/0054800 A1).
Claim 2, Horiuchi further teaches:
The device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the adaptive region comprises an inflatable-deflatable element, and the first actuation input is a first air pressure of the inflatable-deflatable element which is suitable to raise the at least part of the adaptive region (Horiuchi, Figs. 29B and 29C, 33B, In embodiments wherein piston ring 108 and valve 109 create a sealed space S1 (see Horiuchi, Figs. 29B and 29C) or pump 110 creates a space S2 (see Horiuchi, Fig. 33B), the film 102 can be expanded, i.e. raised via the sealed air within the casing 101 and the film 102, causing the film, i.e. the contact region and the adaptive region, to rise and fall.).
Horiuchi does not specifically teach:
A first fluid pressure.
Kim teaches:
A first fluid pressure (Kim, Paragraph [0048], The fluid causes the bearing balls 545 to move in a direction based on the flowing or compression mode of the fluid.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to substitute the air pressure in Horiuchi with the fluid pressure, as taught by Kim, for causing the necessary movement in order to provide haptic feedback (see Kim, Paragraph [0043]). Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose a would yield predictable results.
Claim 4, Horiuchi in view of Kim further teaches:
The device (1) according to claim 2, wherein
-the controller is configured to process the first pressure and the second pressure (Horiuchi, Fig. 26, In the combination of Horiuchi in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the control unit 122 to process the fluid pressure needed to cause movement to provide the haptic feedback (see Kim, Paragraph [0048]).) taking in input (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, The phrase “taking in input” is interpreted as inputs to the device that affect the functionality of the device. Because the steps of “taking in input” are not followed by functional language that utilizes the inputs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the following inputs to be “taken in” by the device in Horiuchi in view of Kim.):
-said force applied by the body part of the user and an indentation depth of the actuator along said direction (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C),
-parameters of the body part (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, The “parameters” include the presence/absence of a finger and that the body part is a finger.);
-characteristics of the target and characteristics of the actuator (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, Paragraphs [0134-0136], The type of haptic sensation being produce, i.e. the target, and the flexibility of the film 102, i.e. characteristics of the actuator, are taken into account to generate the respective haptic sensation.).
Claim 13, Horiuchi teaches:
The method according to claim 12, wherein
-said adaptive region comprises an inflatable-deflatable element and the controller sets a first pressure of air in the inflatable -deflatable element to raise the adaptive region (Horiuchi, Figs. 29B and 29C, 33B, In embodiments wherein piston ring 108 and valve 109 create a sealed space S1 (see Horiuchi, Figs. 29B and 29C) or pump 110 creates a space S2 (see Horiuchi, Fig. 33B), the film 102 can be expanded, i.e. raised via the sealed air within the casing 101 and the film 102, causing the film, i.e. the contact region and the adaptive region, to rise and fall.).
Horiuchi does not specifically teach:
A first pressure of a fluid.
Kim teaches:
A first pressure of a fluid (Kim, Paragraph [0048], The fluid causes the bearing balls 545 to move in a direction based on the flowing or compression mode of the fluid.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to substitute the air pressure in Horiuchi with the fluid pressure, as taught by Kim, for causing the necessary movement in order to provide haptic feedback (see Kim, Paragraph [0043]). Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose a would yield predictable results.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (U.S. 2023/0118358 A1) in view of Rathod (U.S. 2024/0338081 A1).
Claim 3, Horiuchi teaches:
The device (1) according to claim 1.
Horiuchi does not specifically teach:
-the support movable unit comprises or consists of a pouch motor arranged inside a prismatic joint, the controller is configured to set a second fluid pressure in the pouch motor suitable to move the actuator in said at least one direction or opposite direction.
Rathod teaches:
-the support movable unit comprises or consists of a pouch motor arranged inside a prismatic joint (Rathod, Figs. 2A, 2B, Paragraphs [0143-0144], The pressure changing device 810 causes the pressure, e.g. fluid pressure, inside the bladders 806 to change. The pressure changing device 810 is thus functionally equivalent to a pouch motor, wherein the bladders are equivalent to pouches. Additionally, the pouches are configured inside garments, e.g. the fingers of Figs. 2A and 2B, which are equivalent to prismatic joints, which is interpreted as a mechanical connection that allows linear motion along a single axis while preventing rotation.), the controller is configured to set a second fluid pressure in the pouch motor suitable to move the actuator in said at least one direction or opposite direction (Rathod, Figs. 2A, 2B, Paragraphs [0143-0144], The inflating of each bladder moves the actuator, the outside surface of the bladder away from the finger, in at least one direction.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Horiuchi by integrating the teaching of a system 800, as taught by Rathod.
The motivation would be to generate a haptic feedback which is proportional to a user’s physical features to improve the experience for the user (see Rathod, Paragraph [0003]).
Claim 11, Horiuchi in view of Rathod further teaches:
The device (1) according to claim 3, further comprising a first and second valve for controlling, respectively, a fluid flow inside the inflatable-deflatable region and the pouch motor, and a third and fourth valve for controlling, respectively, a fluid flow outside the inflatable-deflatable region and the pouch motor (Rathod, Fig. 8: 808, Paragraph [0145], The flow of air/fluid into and out of bladders 806 are controlled by pressure-changing device 810 via valves (not shown) that are connected to tubing 808. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the number of valves to include at least a first, second, third, and fourth valve, as a matter of engineering choice, in order to control the flow of fluid/air to and from the pressure-changing device 810 and bladders 806. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (U.S. 2023/0118358 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2016/0054800 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2009/0278798 A1, hereinafter Kim2).
Claim 5, Horiuchi in view of Kim teaches:
The device (1) according to claim 4, wherein
-said body part parameters include a radius (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, The surface of the finger F in contact with the film 102 has a radius.),
-said characteristics of the target include a stiffness (Horiuchi, Figs. 18A-18C, Paragraphs [0134-0136], Characteristics of the haptic sensation, i.e. the target, have varying textures, including soft and hard, which represent different stiffnesses.),
-said inflatable-deflatable region has toroidal shape (Horiuchi, Figs. 1-3, As seen in the figures, the film 102, flat plate member 103, and projecting member 104 are incorporated within a hole in the casing 101. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the outer portions of casing 101 to be “donut-like”, i.e. toroidal, as a matter of engineering/design choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.) and said characteristics of the actuator include a thickness and a minor radius of the toroidal shape (Horiuchi, Fig. 3: 102, As can be seen in the Figure, the film 102 has a thickness, and because it spans the peripheral edge of the casing 101, it has a minor radius (see Horiuchi, Paragraph [0110]).).
Horiuchi in view of Kim does not specifically teach:
A Young's modulus of the body part and a Young's modulus of the target.
Kim2 teaches:
A Young's modulus (Kim2, Paragraph [0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to incorporate the teaching of a Young’s modulus into the combination of Horiuchi in view of Kim.
The motivation would be to use a material’s elasticity that is known to be useful for modeling and haptic applications (see Kim2, Paragraph [0224]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (U.S. 2023/0118358 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2016/0054800 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2019/0004604 A1).
Claim 9, Horiuchi in view of Kim further teaches:
The device (1) according to claim 4, including a position sensor (Horiuchi, Fig. 27: 123) coupled to the support movable unit to detect the indentation depth (Horiuchi, Paragraphs [0157], The sensor 123 can be, for example, a ranging sensor, for determining the rotational position of rotation member 105, and therefore of the relative positions of flat plate member 103 and projecting member 104, i.e. indentation depth.).
Horiuchi in view of Kim does not specifically teach:
An operatively connected force sensor, to detect the force applied by the body part on the device.
Wang teaches:
Force sensors to detect the force applied by the body part on the device (Wang, Paragraphs [0041-0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Horiuchi in view of Kim by integrating the teaching of force sensors, as taught by Wang.
The motivation would be to enable the device to know when to provide haptic feedback by detecting the presence of a user (see Wang, Paragraph [0040]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (U.S. 2023/0118358 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2016/0054800 A1), in view of Rathod (U.S. 2024/0338081 A1).
Claim 14, Horiuchi in view of Kim further teaches:
The method according to claim 13.
Horiuchi in view of Kim does not specifically teach:
Wherein -the support movable unit comprises or consists of a pouch motor arranged inside a prismatic joint, and the controller drives the support movable unit by regulating a second pressure of air inside the pouch motor.
Rathod teaches:
Wherein -the support movable unit comprises or consists of a pouch motor arranged inside a prismatic joint (Rathod, Figs. 2A, 2B, Paragraphs [0143-0144], The pressure changing device 810 causes the pressure, e.g. air or fluid pressure, inside the bladders 806 to change. The pressure changing device 810 is thus functionally equivalent to a pouch motor, wherein the bladders are equivalent to pouches. Additionally, the pouches are configured inside garments, e.g. the fingers of Figs. 2A and 2B, which are equivalent to prismatic joints, which is interpreted as a mechanical connection that allows linear motion along a single axis while preventing rotation.), and the controller drives the support movable unit by regulating a second pressure of air inside the pouch motor (Rathod, Figs. 2A, 2B, Paragraphs [0143-0144], The inflating of each bladder moves the actuator, the outside surface of the bladder away from the finger, in at least one direction.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Horiuchi in view of Kim by integrating the teaching of a system 800, as taught by Rathod.
The motivation would be to generate a haptic feedback which is proportional to a user’s physical features to improve the experience for the user (see Rathod, Paragraph [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10, and 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and 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:
The closest related prior art to the Applicant’s claimed invention is Horiuchi (U.S. 2023/0118358 A1). Horiuchi discloses a haptic sensation presenting device 100 which utilizes a flat plate member 103 and a projecting member 104 to produce a haptic sensation upon a user, e.g. via finger F, touching a film 102 (see Horiuchi, Figs. 18). The flat plate member 103 and the projecting member 104 are raised and lowered, respectively, using a rotation member 105, which is controlled by a motor 121 and control unit 122 (see Horiuchi, Fig. 26). As per claim 6, Horiuchi does not teach the ability to estimate a contact area spread rate and a stiffness, and a force applied by the body to determine a fluid pressure in order to set the pressure in order to raise the adaptive region and drive the support movable unit, as claimed. As per claim 7, Horiuchi does not teach a top and bottom membrane, a fluidic communication with a tube for fluid flow, and a mask. Claim 8, 10, and 15-17 are allowable for the same reasons as claims 6 and 7, respectively, above. Additionally, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Horiuchi to conclude at claims 6, 7, or 15, without using improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights