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 . 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. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 11, and Claim 13 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikaga (JP7524134) in view of Zhao (US Patent 10,845,878) and Thomsen (US 2022/0048069). All reference is to Ashikaga unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 1 (Original), Ashikaga teaches an electronic device comprising:
a haptic element [fig. 1 @CL, ¶0003, “A dielectric elastomer actuator is a capacitive load with a capacitor structure which generates a displacement according to an applied voltage”];
a DC power supply [fig. 1 @E]; and
a power management system [fig. 1 @1] and comprising:
a current-limiting [¶0020, “The first current control circuit 25 monitors the output current Iout1 by the voltage across resistor R1, and has an overcurrent protection (OCP) function that when the output current Iout1 rises and reaches the overcurrent threshold I_oc1, controls the on/off of the switching element 22 via the driver 26 to limit the power supplied to the second power supply unit 3”] voltage regulator coupled [via fig. 1 @21 (transformer)] to an output of the DC power supply [fig. 1 @E] and
configured to provide a constant voltage supply rail as output [¶0019, “The first voltage control circuit 24 is a circuit that generates a control signal for controlling the on/off of the switching element 22, and controls the output voltage Vout1 to a desired constant voltage by the control signal”];
an output capacitor [fig. 1 @Cin] coupling the constant voltage supply rail to system ground [¶0024, “The input capacitor Cin is, for example, an electrolytic capacitor, and has a positive terminal connected to an input terminal Tin2 to which the output voltage Vout1 from the first power supply unit 2 is input, and a negative terminal connected to a ground terminal”]; and
a waveform generator conductively coupled to the output capacitor and the current-limiting voltage regulator and configured to generate a voltage waveform to drive the haptic element [¶0033, “In the second power supply unit 3, an LC filter circuit is formed by a reactor L1, an input capacitor Cin, and a capacitive load CL, and a desired output voltage Vout2 is output by alternately turning on and off a high-side switching element 31 and a low-side switching element 32 and controlling the duty ratio, as shown in Fig. 3. The output voltage Vout2 shown in Fig. 3 has a waveform when a sine wave is output”]
Ashikaga does not teach the electronic device in a housing; and the DC power supply is a battery; and a capacity of the output capacitor prevents the constant voltage supply rail from dropping below a threshold voltage when the haptic element is driven by the current-limiting voltage waveform
Zhao teaches a haptic element [fig. 5 @212] and a battery [fig. 5 @273] and a power management system [fig. 5 @250] within a housing [fig. 5 illustrates components configured as a mobile phone which the Examiner takes Official Notice comprises a housing to cover and protect internal components] and
a battery [fig. 5 @273] is a DC power supply [fig. 4 illustrates battery supplying DC voltage to haptic actuator 212]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the components of a haptic feedback device inside an enclosure and provide DC power from a battery also enclosed in the enclosure, as taught by Zhao, into the electronic device, taught by Ashikaga, in order to provide mounting locations, protection from the elements and enable the device to operate independent of fixed power sources for extended periods
Ashikaga in view of Zhao does not teach a capacity of the output capacitor prevents the constant voltage supply rail from dropping below a threshold voltage when the haptic element is driven by the current-limiting voltage waveform
Thomsen teaches a capacity [¶0094, “The size of the capacitor 501 may thus be selected, based on the reactive load to be driven, such that a single charge of the capacitor provides sufficient charge for the driving of the reactive load over the course of a signal cycle for the input signal”] of the output capacitor [fig. 5 @501] prevents a constant voltage supply rail from dropping below a threshold voltage [¶0100, “The input voltage for the switching driver 401 may thus define the voltage tolerance required for the switches of the switch network of the variable boost stage and also define the voltage range of the different operating modes, and hence the overall voltage range of the switching driver”, the threshold is the minimum Vin that allows the voltage range of the switching driver to generate the desired haptic output] when a haptic element [fig. 5 @104] is driven by the current-limiting voltage waveform [by providing all the load current (fig. 5 @501) allows (fig. 5 @N1) to maintain the desired output voltage]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of connecting a capacitor across the outputs of a switching power supply, as taught by Thomsen, into the electronic device, taught by Ashikaga in view of Zhao, in order to maintain the load voltage at a desired magnitude without requiring costly, high current components in the driver to supply large load currents
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen teaches the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein
the current-limiting voltage regulator comprises a boost converter [Thomsen: fig. 4 @402, ¶0072, “In the example of FIG. 4 the switching driver 401 comprises a variable boost stage 402”].
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen teaches the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein
the waveform generator comprises a Class D amplifier [Thomsen: ¶0004, “In some applications the driver 102 may include a switching amplifier stage, e.g. a class-D amplifier stage or the like, for generating the drive signal”].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Rosenberg (US 2002/0126091). All reference is to Ashikaga unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen teaches the electronic device of Claim 1
Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen does not teach the output capacitor has a capacity greater than 50 microfarads
Rosenberg teaches an output capacitor [fig. 6 @162] has a capacity greater than 50 microfarads [¶0142, “Capacitor 162 is coupled between an output of current limiter 160 and ground. The capacitor has a capacitance C that has been selected to provide the desired charging characteristics … C can be 2,000 to 10,000 microfarads … Capacitor 162 stores energy from the current-limited signal on line 161 until it is fully charged … The capacitor 162 and amplifier ("driver") circuit 166 are configured in such a way so as to allow capacitor C to supply power to the amplifier to amplify a control signal input to the amplifier”, ¶0146, “This human perceptual condition is highly relevant to the present power circuit. Using the energy stored in capacitor 162 to power amplifier 166, a change in force can be created for a short period of time as the capacitor discharges its energy. Using the added power from the capacitor, the motor 96 can output a stronger force than when using the power supply 41 or other source alone. Thus, strong jolts or other force sensations can be provided above the power supply's maximum force level of the interface device”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a large capacitor between the output of a current limited signal and ground, as taught by Rosenberg, into the electronic device taught by Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen, in order to provide a stronger haptic force than the device power supply is capable of generating (Rosenberg: ¶0146).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Khoshkava (US 2018/0190085). All reference is to Ashikaga unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen teaches electronic device of Claim 4, wherein
the Class D amplifier [Thomsen: fig. 1 @102, ¶0004, “driver 102 may include a switching amplifier stage, e.g. a class-D amplifier stage or the like, for generating the drive signal”] comprises an output conductively coupled to an input of a haptic actuator [¶0003, “… the driver 102 drives the transducer 104 to cause the transducer to produce a desired output, e.g. an audible, ultrasonic or haptic output based on the input signal Sin”]
Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen does not teach the actuator is an electromagnetic coil
Khoshkava teaches an actuator [fig. 13 @100] is an electromagnetic coil [¶0023, “Referring now to FIGS. 1-3, a haptic actuator 100 has a … electromagnetic coil 106 …”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using an electromagnetic coil as a haptic actuator, as taught by Khoshkava, into the electronic device, taught by Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen, in order to use a modulated electrical signal to create a modulated magnetic field to cause a magnetic mechanical mass to generate a modulated haptic effect.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Park (US 2016/0048209). All reference is to Ashikaga unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen teaches the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein
the output capacitor [Thomsen: fig. 5 @501] is part of the haptic driver [Thomsen: fig. 5 @400]
Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen does not teach the housing comprises a cylindrical portion; and the haptic driver is sized to fit within the cylindrical portion
Park teaches a housing comprises a cylindrical portion [fig. 5 @168]; and
a haptic driver [fig. 5 @ (520 and 530)] is sized to fit within the cylindrical portion [¶0117, “the pen controller 530 … controls a vibration period and a vibration strength of the vibration device 520 of the input device 168 by a control signal. The pen controller 530 controls the battery 550 to supply power to the components”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring the haptic driver, taught by Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen, to fit the cylindrical form factor, taught by Park, in order to provide stronger haptic effects in an active stylus.
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Park teaches the electronic device of Claim 6, wherein
the electronic device is a stylus device [Park: fig. 5 @168].
Claims 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Fong (WO 2012/082072). All reference is to Ashikaga unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 10 (Original), Ashikaga teaches an accessory device for providing input to a portable electronic device, the accessory device comprising:
a haptic module [fig. 1 @CL] comprising a drive element [¶0003, “A dielectric elastomer actuator is a capacitive load with a capacitor structure which generates a displacement according to an applied voltage”];
a DC power supply [fig. 1 @E];
a power management system [fig. 1 @1] and comprising:
a current-limiting [¶0020, “The first current control circuit 25 monitors the output current Iout1 by the voltage across resistor R1, and has an overcurrent protection (OCP) function that when the output current Iout1 rises and reaches the overcurrent threshold I_oc1, controls the on/off of the switching element 22 via the driver 26 to limit the power supplied to the second power supply unit 3”] voltage regulator coupled [via fig. 1 @21 (transformer)] to an output of the DC power supply [fig. 1 @E]; and
configured to provide a constant voltage supply rail as output [¶0019, “The first voltage control circuit 24 is a circuit that generates a control signal for controlling the on/off of the switching element 22, and controls the output voltage Vout1 to a desired constant voltage by the control signal”];
an output capacitor [fig. 1 @Cin] coupling the constant voltage supply rail to system ground [¶0024, “The input capacitor Cin is, for example, an electrolytic capacitor, and has a positive terminal connected to an input terminal Tin2 to which the output voltage Vout1 from the first power supply unit 2 is input, and a negative terminal connected to a ground terminal”]; and
a signal generator receiving a supply voltage from the output capacitor and configured to generate a voltage signal as output to drive the drive element of the haptic module [¶0033, “In the second power supply unit 3, an LC filter circuit is formed by a reactor L1, an input capacitor Cin, and a capacitive load CL, and a desired output voltage Vout2 is output by alternately turning on and off a high-side switching element 31 and a low-side switching element 32 and controlling the duty ratio, as shown in Fig. 3. The output voltage Vout2 shown in Fig. 3 has a waveform when a sine wave is output”]
Ashikaga does not teach a low impedance haptic drive element; the DC power supply is a battery; and the output capacitor is configured to prevent the constant voltage supply rail from dropping
Zhao teaches a battery [fig. 5 @273] is a DC power supply [fig. 4 illustrates battery supplying DC voltage to haptic actuator 212]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing DC power from a battery, as taught by Zhao, into the accessory device, taught by Ashikaga, to enable the device to operate independent of fixed power sources for extended periods
Ashikaga in view of Zhao does not teach the output capacitor is configured to prevent the constant voltage supply rail from dropping
Thomsen teaches an output capacitor [fig. 5 @501] is configured to prevent the constant voltage supply rail from dropping [the constant voltage output is maintained because all load current is provided by the output capacitor instead of the voltage regulator, ¶0094, “The size of the capacitor 501 may thus be selected, based on the reactive load to be driven, such that a single charge of the capacitor provides sufficient charge for the driving of the reactive load over the course of a signal cycle for the input signal”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of connecting a capacitor across the outputs of a switching power supply, as taught by Thomsen, into the accessory device, taught by Ashikaga in view of Zhao, in order to maintain the load voltage at a desired magnitude without requiring costly, high current components in the driver to supply large load currents
Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen does not teach the haptic drive element has a low impedance
Fong teaches a haptic drive element has a low impedance [¶0042, “Various embodiments may provide a haptic actuator having a pair of solenoids (e.g. a pair of lightweight, low impedance solenoids), coupled or arranged to provide high force ungrounded haptic feedback”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a low impedance haptic drive element, as taught by Fong, into the accessory device taught by Ashikaga in view of Zhao and Thomsen, in order to draw more current and provide faster response to changes in the desired haptic force.
Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Fong teaches the accessory device of Claim 10, wherein
the output capacitor [fig. 1 @Cin] is parallel to an output capacitor [fig. 1 @Cout] of the current-limiting voltage regulator.
Regarding Claim 16 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Fong teaches the accessory device of Claim 10, wherein
the low impedance drive element comprises an electromagnetic coil [Fong: ¶0042, “Various embodiments may provide a haptic actuator having a pair of solenoids (e.g. a pair of lightweight, low impedance solenoids), coupled or arranged to provide high force ungrounded haptic feedback”].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen, Fong and Park. All reference is to Ashikaga unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 17 (Original), Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Fong teaches the accessory device of Claim 10
Ashikaga in view of Zhao, Thomsen and Fong does not teach the portable electronic device is a tablet device and the accessory device comprises a stylus
Park teaches a portable electronic device is a tablet device [fig. 1 @100, ¶0053 teaches a tablet] and
the accessory device comprises a stylus [fig. 5 @168, ¶0147, “Referring to FIG. 8 again, the controller 110 determines a first vibration to be output from the input device 168 and a second vibration to be output from the portable device 100”]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 8-9, and 12-15 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 Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The Examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights