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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) generally concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) based on data gathering with assistance of commonly known generic computer elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 1. A method of generating a haptic effect, the method comprising:
- obtaining classification information representative of a type of an audio content associated with an audio signal; (data gathering)
- selecting a set of detection parameters among a plurality of sets of detection parameters according to said classification information using mapping information, said mapping information mapping each set of detection parameters of said plurality of sets of detection parameters with a determined type of audio content of a list of different types of audio content; (mental processes with human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion))
- detecting at least a component of said audio signal according to said set of detection parameters; (data gathering)
- determining at least a characteristic representative of said at least a component; and (mental processes with human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion))
- generating said haptic effect according to said at least a characteristic. (data outputting based on determination of characteristic as processed above)
Claims 2-5 drawn primarily to data gathering and processing.
Claim 6 drawn to mathematical equation/formula and relationship.
Claim 7-9 drawn to data gathering and processing.
Claim 10-13 drawn to generic data processing using generic computer elements performing conventional functions.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CHU (US 20090002315 A1).
1. CHU discloses (abstract) a method of generating a haptic effect [0064], the method (FIG.8) comprising:
- obtaining classification information representative of a type of an audio content associated with an audio signal; [0076]
- selecting a set of detection parameters among a plurality of sets of detection parameters according to said classification information using mapping information [0075-0076], said mapping information mapping each set of detection parameters of said plurality of sets of detection parameters with a determined type of audio content of a list of different types of audio content; [0076]
- detecting at least a component of said audio signal according to said set of detection parameters; [0075]
- determining at least a characteristic representative of said at least a component [0066, 0076]; and
- generating said haptic effect according to said at least a characteristic. [0071]
2. CHU discloses [0071, 0074-0079] the method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining a set of user-preference parameters representative of preference of a user, said haptic effect being further generated according to said set of user-preference parameters.
4. CHU discloses [0071, 0075] the method according to claim 2, wherein values of detection parameters of said set of detection parameters are according to said set of user-preference parameters.
5. CHU discloses [0076] the method according to claim 1, wherein said at least a component belongs to a set of components comprising:
- a component corresponding to a transient in a temporal representation of said audio signal; and
- a component corresponding to a frequency sub-band of a frequency band associated with a frequency representation of said audio signal.
7. CHU discloses [0075] the method according to claim 1, wherein said set of detection parameters comprises at least a parameter belonging to a set of parameters comprising:
- a parameter representative of a determined amplitude;
- a parameter representative of a time window;
- parameters representative of bounds of a frequency interval;
- a parameter representative of a frequency threshold; and
- a parameter representative of a spectral power threshold.
8. CHU discloses [0066-0067] the method according to claim 1, wherein said at least a characteristic belongs to a set of characteristics comprising:
- a characteristic representative of an amplitude value;
- a characteristic representative of a frequency value;
- a characteristic representative of an amplitude power difference between 2 power spectral density representations of said audio signal.
9. CHU discloses [0072, 0074] the method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining actuator information
10. CHU discloses [0076] the method according to claim 1, wherein said mapping information being stored in a memory.
11. CHU discloses an apparatus of generating a haptic effect, wherein said apparatus comprising a memory associated with at least a processor configured to implement the method according to claim 1. (FIG.1-2)
12. CHU discloses a non-transitory processor readable medium having stored therein instructions for causing a processor to perform at least the steps of the method according to claim 1. (FIG.1-2)
13. CHU discloses a computer program product comprising instructions of program code for executing the method according to claim 1, when said program is executed on a computer. (FIG.1-2)
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.
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(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHU (US 20090002315 A1) in view of CRUZ-HERNANDEZ et al. (US 20200043301 A1).
However, CHU fails to explicitly disclose:
3. The method according to claim 2, further comprising:
- receiving mode information representative of a rendering mode for rendering said haptic effect;
- selecting said set of user-preference parameters among a plurality of sets of user-preference parameters according to said mode information.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein said frequency representation is obtained by applying a Fast Fourier Transform to said temporal representation of said audio signal.
CRUZ-HERNANDEZ teaches (abstract) [0060, 0070] in a similar field of invention, using haptic profiles for users for producing haptic effects. Furthermore, CRUZ-HERNANDEZ teaches using a Fast Fourier Transform for processing an audio signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a user-preference parameters based on mode information (haptic profiles) and Fast Fourier Transform for processing an audio signal in order to improve audio and haptic signal processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 Form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights