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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: determination module (line 3) and driving control module (line 13) in Claim 10.selection module in Claims 10 (line 8), 12 (line 3), & 18 (line 1)laser vibration measurement means (line 3), and processing means (line 5) in Claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for generating localized vibrotactile feedback at a target vibration position of a vibration plate, comprising:
determining a set of reference modal participation coefficients corresponding to a set of eigenmodes associated with the vibration plate based on the target vibration position and a reference vibration field at the target vibration position; determining a target vibration field at the target vibration position based on the set of eigenmodes and the set of reference modal participation coefficients; selecting a subset of eigenmodes for modal superposition from the set of eigenmodes and determining a subset of modal participation coefficients corresponding to the subset of eigenmodes, wherein a superposed vibration field generated based on the subset of eigenmodes and its corresponding subset of modal participation coefficients satisfies a preset similarity requirement with the target vibration field; and determining driving control information based on the subset of eigenmodes and its corresponding subset of modal participation coefficients and a position of a vibration component at the vibration plate, wherein the driving control information is used to drive the vibration component to generate the localized vibrotactile feedback at the target vibration position.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites mathematical concepts which consist of mathematical relationships and calculations for representing, combining, comparing, and selecting vibration modes and coefficients. The claim does include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as stated, the claim, can be performed via mental processing using mathematical calculations and concepts. Claims 2-9 depend upon Claim 1 and inherit the 101 rejection as well.
Claims 2-9 further recite mathematical limitations including determining frequency differences, selecting candidate subsets, comparing modal participation coefficients with threshold values, modifying thresholds, calculating a structural similarity index, and adjusting coefficients to reduce a difference between vibration fields.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENFERAD ET AL. Journal of Sound and Vibration 449 (2019) (pp. 196-213): Generating controlled localized stimulations on haptic displays by modal superimposition (hereinafter ENFERAD) in view of PAN ET AL. Chinese Patent No. CN 108376192 (hereinafter PAN).
Regarding Claim 1 a method for generating localized vibrotactile feedback at a target vibration position of a vibration plate, comprising: determining a set of reference modal participation coefficients corresponding to a set of eigenmodes associated with the vibration plate based on the target vibration position and a reference vibration field at the target vibration position;(ENFERAD, pp.200, Fig. 2)
determining a target vibration field at the target vibration position based on the set of eigenmodes and the set of reference modal participation coefficients;(ENFERAD)
selecting a subset of eigenmodes for modal superposition from the set of eigenmodes and determining a subset of modal participation coefficients corresponding to the subset of eigenmodes, wherein a superposed vibration field generated based on the subset of eigenmodes and its corresponding subset of modal participation coefficients satisfies a preset similarity requirement with the target vibration field; and (PAN)
determining driving control information based on the subset of eigenmodes and its corresponding subset of modal participation coefficients and a position of a vibration component at the vibration plate, wherein the driving control information is used to drive the vibration component to generate the localized vibrotactile feedback at the target vibration position.(ENFERAD)
ENFERAD teaches a localized haptic display in which a vibration of plate/screen is controlled using modal superposition. The abstract states that the authors used a modal basis to reproduce a specified velocity field and synthesize actuator voltage for controlled focusing, which were successful utilizing various velocity fields and a reduced number of modes.
(Abs., pp.196, “In the field of tactile feedback, researchers try to generate localized stimulations on screens. Some solutions such as time reversal or phased array use vibration induced in the screen equipped with piezoelectric ceramics. We propose to use the modal basis to reproduce a specified velocity field on such devices. We explain the theory and propose a methodology to practically synthesize the voltages to achieved a controlled focusing in a given time. Experiments on a simple demonstrator are in good agreement with the theory for various velocity fields and a reduced number of modes.”)
ENFERAD also teaches the plate response as a weighted superposition of mode shapes (ENFERAD, pp.199, Eq.(20)), (ENFERAD, pp.199, Eq.(23))
(Id, pp. 197, “As matter of fact, this brief overview shows that the two last techniques actually rely on similar devices, and so they could be combined. To address the robustness issue, we propose an alternative approach to localized stimulation that can be combined with friction control. It is based on a truncated modal decomposition to design a focusing shape and control its position as suggested in Ref. [21]. This paper is in the continuity of our previous work that demonstrated that the resulting focus was viable to generate stimuli [25]. First we recall the basic theory that links the piezoelectric patches placement to the vibration problem then the methodology to specify the time evolution. Optimal voltage distribution to avoid saturation is also discussed. In the next part, we demonstrate the validity through various experiments and address some specific issues. Finally the last sections are devoted to discussion and conclusion identifies participation of piezoelectric ceramics in individual modes “)
and determines drive voltages from the desired modal response (ENFERAD, pp.201-202, Eqs.(28-30)).
(Con, pp.211,”This paper has discussed a method to synthesize and approximate a velocity field to achieve a specific velocity at a given time. The focus is on haptic applications where different stimuli are needed. Since such devices usually use plates excited with piezoelectric patches, the equations have been revisited to show how several modes can be excited by applying specific voltages to different ceramics. We’ve proposed a way to calculate the voltages needed and distribute them among the piezo patches based on the physical limits of the ceramics. To do this, the problem is reformulated in the modal basis, and the modal forces are set according to the projection of the desired velocity field. The benefit of this method is that it allows stimuli to be generated independently of the actuator locations and enables control over the focusing time by properly handling the rise time of each mode. Experiments have shown that it works even with a reduced number of modes. Several velocity fields have been tested. Future work will deal with parametric variations by adding a closed-loop control and psycho-physical studies to figure out the best velocity distributions for haptic applications.”)
ENFERAD, teaches, albeit not explicitly states, a vibration plate, a desired/target vibration or velocity field, eigenmodes/modal basis, modal coefficients, modal superposition, localized focusing, and driving information used to actuate piezoelectric components.
However, ENFERAD does not teach the requirements that the selected subset of eigenmodes and corresponding modal participation coefficients satisfy the particular claimed preset similarity requirement. PAN, teaches the modal-truncation/accuracy teaching such as obtaining N modes and frequencies, calculating the participation coefficient of each mode and contribution, and determining a retained number R of modes according to a cumulative contribution criterion.
(PAN, pp.1/4 – 2/4, S1-S5 , “S1: the structure before performing modal analysis to obtain N of structure order vibration model (φ) and frequency ω i (i=1, 2, ..., N);
S2: calculating the vibrating coefficient of seismic input direction of each stage vibrating type (i=1, 2, ..., N), in the formula, [M] is quality matrix (I) is the ground influence of motion vector;
S3: further calculating vibration acceleration of the j-th degree of freedom i order vibration contribution coefficient rA = γ, i φ γ i in the formula is the vibrating coefficient of ith order vibration type, φ is the j-th degree of freedom the coefficient of the i order vibration type;
S4: The S3 calculation result, calculating the j-th degree of freedom accumulated vibration acceleration contribution factor
S5: The cumulative value of vibration acceleration contribution coefficient determining the acceleration response required vibration type number. wherein in the S1 N is more than or equal to 2.
S5, acceleration response is acceleration response of structure under the seismic action.
in S5, the j-th degree of freedom front R-stage vibrating type resultant accumulated vibration acceleration contribution coefficient satisfies | 1-rA, j (R) | is less than or equal to 0.05, R is the mode superposition method to calculate vibration number needed by the acceleration response.
The beneficial effects of the technical solution of the invention is as follows:
The method can reasonably determine the mode superposition method to calculate the acceleration response required vibration number, effectively control error of the acceleration response, and simple calculation, and it is easy to operate.”)
(Pan, Claim 1, “A method to determine the mode calculating the vibration number needed by the acceleration response of the method, wherein comprises the following steps: S1: the structure before performing modal analysis to obtain N of structure order vibration model (φ) and frequency ω i (i=1, 2, ..., N); S2: calculating the vibrating coefficient of seismic input direction of each stage vibrating type in the formula, [M] is quality matrix (I) is the ground influence of motion vector of S3, further calculating the j-th degree of freedom i order vibration type vibration acceleration contribution coefficients rA, = γ φ, in which γ is vibrating in coefficient of the i order vibration type, φ is the j-th degree of freedom i order vibration type of coefficient of S4, according to the S3 result, calculating the j-th degree of freedom accumulated vibration acceleration contribution factor S5: The cumulative value of vibration acceleration contribution coefficient determining acceleration needed by the reaction mode number.”)
In particular PAN teaches calculating the participation coefficient of each vibration mode (S2) and defines the contribution using (y i) , identified as the participation coefficient of the ith mode (S3). It determines R , and explains that this condition corresponds to structural acceleration peak error below 5%.
ENFERAD and PAN are analogous art because both are directed to modal analysis and modal superposition of vibrating structures and address the use of selected vibration modes to accurately represent a desired vibration response.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply PAN’s known modal-truncation techniques to ENFERAD’s modal haptic synthesis so that only a sufficient subset of modes and their associated participation coefficient are retained while maintaining a predetermined degree of agreement with the target modal response. PAN expressly identifies controlling modal-truncation error as the reason for determining the required number of modes. The combination therefore would predictably reduce modal/computational burden while maintaining the desired localized vibration response.
Regarding Claim 3, which depends upon Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons stated for Claim 1. PAN, evaluates the response obtained with different retained numbers R and determines the number sufficient to meet the predetermined error criterion. (S2-S4).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ENFERAD’s reduced-mode selection by successively considering additional modal content until the predetermined response is met because PAN expressly teaches determining the number of retained modes by convergence to an acceptable response error. Which would have been a predictable way of carrying out the disclosed mode-number determination.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends upon Claim 3, which depends upon Claim 1. ENFERAD teaches generating localized vibrotactile stimulation by modal superposition, including use of a reduced modal representation to reproduce a specified vibration/velocity field and synthesis of actuator-driving signals. PAN teaches obtaining vibration modes, calculating a modal participation coefficient for each mode (S2), determining individual modal contributions (S3), calculating cumulative modal contribution (S4), and determining reduced number of R modes for modal superposition according to a predetermined accuracy condition. PAN further evaluates modal superposition responses using different retained mode numbers and uses the fuller modal response as an accuracy reference. However, the combination of ENFERAD and PAN do not expressly teach the exact feedback loop implementation in which, for each iteration, a candidate subset is selected using a current modal participation coefficient threshold, the resulting superposed field is tested against a similarity threshold, and the modal participation threshold is decreased for the next iteration when the similarity condition is not met. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate PAN’s modal truncation teachings with ENFERAD’s localized modal haptic system to begin with the modes having greater modal contribution and progressively admit additional, lower-contributing modes when the current retailed subset fails to provide the required approximation. PAN expressly teaches selecting sufficient retained modal content to meet a predetermined accuracy criterion and avoiding unnecessary modes. Implementing that known selection objection through successive candidate subsets and progressively relaxed participation cutoff would have been a predictable quantitative technique for increasing retained modal content only as needed, thereby balancing reconstruction accuracy against computational burden.
Regarding Claim 18, which discloses parallel limitations of Claim 4, aside from it being the apparatus instead of the method, is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4 as stated above.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends upon Claim 4, which depends on Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1. ENFERAD in view of PAN teaches the limitations of the Claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. PAN further teaches determining respective modal participation coefficient for each vibration mode (S2) and determining the contribution of each individual mode according to r A,ji = γ i φ ji. Where γ i is expressly identified as the modal participation coefficient of the i-th mode (S3)(Claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a participation-based selection criterion to the modal participation coefficients taught by PAN when selecting the reduced modes used by ENFERAD, because doing so provides a known technique for retaining modes having a significant contribution to the structural response while excluding modes contributing insignificantly to the desired response.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends upon Claim 4, which depends upon Claim 3, which depends upon Claim 1. The combination of ENFERAD and PAN, teaches the limitations of Claims 4, 3, and 1, as discussed above and teaches progressively retaining sufficient modal content to meet a predetermined response-accuracy criterion. However, the combination does expressly teach the method of claim 4,
wherein decreasing the current modal participation coefficient threshold condition comprises decreasing a threshold corresponding to the current modal participation coefficient threshold condition by a predetermined magnitude such that a number of eigenmodes included in a candidate subset of eigenmodes for a subsequent iteration round increases. However, once a modal participation threshold is used as a candidate-mode selection criterion, lowering that threshold permits additional modes having lower participation values to qualify for the next candidate subset. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to lower the threshold by a predetermined increment rather than an arbitrary amount because a fixed decrement provides a repeatable and predictable search progression for enlarging the modal basis until the desired approximation is obtained. Such a routine implementation would permit systemic control over the tradeoff between computational efficiency and reconstruction accuracy.
Regarding Claim 20, which discloses similar limitations as Claim 6, aside from it being the apparatus instead of the method, is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6 as stated above.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, which recite apparatus counterparts of the modal control subject matters of Claims 1 and 3. ENFERAD’s physical haptic display, piezoelectric actuators, modal synthesis, and voltage generation provide the corresponding physical apparatus , while PAN supplies the reduced-modal selection/accuracy technique. Configuring the apparatus to carry out the above operations would have yielded the same predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19, which depends upon Claim 18,which depends upon Claim 12, which depends upon Claim 10, which is the apparatus using the concepts of the method of Claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason as Claim 5 as it has similar limitations as Claim 5.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENFERAD in view of PAN, further in view of KARAMATH ET AL. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0307789. Regarding Claims 2 and 11, which recite similar limitations except one is a method and one is an apparatus. KARAMATH teaches that two stimulus frequencies may be superimposed so that their difference is a beat frequency and within a range that produces a tactile sensation.
Regarding the additional limitation concerning a frequency difference between adjacent eigenmodes being within a tactile-sensitive frequency interval, Claim 2 states the method of claim 1,
wherein each eigenmode is associated with a respective resonant frequency, and hardware configuration parameters of the vibration plate are set such that a frequency difference between two resonant frequencies associated with every two adjacent eigenmodes in the set of eigenmodes, ordered by frequency values of resonant frequencies, is within a tactile sensitive frequency interval.
KARAMATH teaches that human skin exhibits frequency-dependent sensitivity to vibration.
(¶[0122], “The applied time-varying signal is known to be the most effective in reproducing realistic tactile sensations when it has a frequency in the range of 20 Hz-1 kHz. In particular, the range of approximately 50-300 Hz corresponds to the frequency at which mechanoreceptors in the skin are most sensitive.”)
KARAMATH further teaches producing a tactile sensation based upon a difference between two frequencies, defining the beat frequences as “∆f = f1 – f2 “ [0125]
(¶[0125], “The total signal oscillates with twice the frequency fe, which is referred to herein as the beat frequency . ∆f = f1 – f2). If . ∆f is small compared to f1 and f2, then the waves superimpose as shown in FIG. 3. Since the human skin is insensitive to oscillations of frequency greater than the perception threshold frequency, ft (approximately 1 kHz), if the applied high voltage signals have sinusoidal waveforms f1 and f2 that are of a frequency greater than this perception frequency (for example, 1000 Hz and 1100 Hz respectively), then the oscillations of the skin generated by these individual applied signals will not be perceived.”)
KARAMATH explains that when two frequencies are 1000Hz and 1100Hz, their superposition produces a frequences difference of 100Hz that is perceived by the user as tactile sensation.
(¶[0125], “However, if the two high voltage signals generate oscillations that are a superposition of both sinusoids and the resultant beat frequency, . ∆f, (for example, 100 Hz) is less than the perception threshold, then oscillations at this beat frequency will be perceived.”)
KARAMATH does not expressly teach that the two frequencies are frequencies of adjacent eigenmodes of a vibration plate. However, KARAMATH, establishes that a frequence difference falling within a tactile-sensitive range produces a perceptible tactile response.
The combination of ENFERAD , PAN and KARAMATH, are analogous art because all three references are directed to controlling vibration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hardware screen/plate of ENFERAD’s along with the obtained frequencies of PAN and incorporate the desired spacing falling into the known tactile sensitive range of 50-300Hz and pointed out by KARAMATH to ensure that the tactile feedback is perceptible.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENFERAD in view of PAN, further in view ARUN ET AL. Journal of Applied Research and Technology 17 (2019) (pp.126-136): An Automated method for the analysis of bearing vibration based on spectrogram pattern matching (hereinafter ARUN).
Regarding Claim 7 the combination of ENFERAD and PAN teach comparing reduced/current vibration response with a target/reference response to determine an approximation requirement is satisfied. However, the combination of ENFERAD and PAN, do not expressly teach the method of claim 4, wherein the similarity between the current superposed vibration field and the target vibration field is defined based on a structural similarity index, the structural similarity index is related to average vibration displacements, standard deviations of vibration displacements, and a similarity of vibration field structures of the two vibration fields. However, ARUN teaches applying the Structural Similarity Index(SSIM) to vibration data, including comparison of vibration spectrogram representations.
(Abs, pp. 126, “Vibration being highly non-stationary, time domain as well as spectral features cannot characterize its behavior. Even though spectrogram is a time-frequency domain feature extraction technique, its interpretation is tedious and perhaps, subjective. In the proposed method, the spectrogram images of the normal vibration data is compared with that of the contextual vibration, using Structural Similarity Index Metric (SSIM)”).
SSIM is a known similarity metric based on mean/luminance information, contrast or statistical dispersion, and structural comparison. (ARUN, pp. 129, (4)).
PNG
media_image1.png
171
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination of ENFERAD , PAN and ARUN, are analogous art because all three references are directed to the analysis of vibration responses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the SSIM comparison technique taught by ARUN to quantitively evaluate the similarity between the superposed vibration field and target vibration field of ENFERAD and PAN because ARUN demonstrates that SSIM provides an objective quantitative measure for comparing vibration-derived distributions using their mean, statistical dispersion and structural relationship. Applying this known similarity metric to the vibration fields of the ENFERAD and PAN would have predictably provided a determination of whether the vibration field corresponds to the target vibration field.
Regarding Claim 21, which recites the same limitations as Claim 7, aside from it being the apparatus instead of the method, is rejected for the same reason as Claim 7 as stated above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of ENFERAD and PAN, in view of LV ET AL. WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2024099100 (hereinafter LV).
The combination of ENFERAD and PAN teaches the limitations of Claim 1, which Claim 8 depends upon. ENFERAD further teaches defining and reproducing a desired spatial vibration field on a haptic surface using modal superposition. However the combination of ENFERAD and PAN does not expressly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target vibration position is one or more of a preset number of discrete positions on the vibration plate, wherein the vibration plate is divided into multiple localized vibration regions in rows and columns, and each discrete position of the preset number of discrete positions corresponds to a localized vibration region; wherein reference vibration fields at the preset number of discrete positions are represented by a reference vibration field matrix, wherein an element in the reference vibration field matrix corresponding to the target vibration position is 1, and elements corresponding to discrete positions other than the target vibration position are 0.
LV teaches dividing a tactile object a matrix , having a plurality of spatial positions, wherein each spatial position corresponds to a tactile signal.
(¶[0076], “In the mask matrix, the position corresponding to the number 1 indicates the spatial position where the tactile signal exists, and the position corresponding to the number 0 indicates the spatial position where the tactile signal does not exist.”)
The combination of ENFERAD,PAN and LV, are analogous art because all three references are directed to the processing and controlling vibration or tactile responses.
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to represent the discrete target locations of the combination of ENFERAD and PAN, using the spatial matrix technique taught by LV, to represent spatial locations of tactile signals to create the claimed invention to permit localized vibration positions to be represented as a discrete spatial target. Applying the known technique of LV would yield predictable results of a target position having a 1 and a non-target position having a 0.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of ENFERAD, PAN, and LV, further in view of JUNG ET AL. Transactions of the Korean Society for Noise and Vibration Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 5, The Korean Society for Noise and Vibration Engineering, (2014), (pp. 381–389): “Estimation of Vibration Field of a Cylindrical Structure Derived by Optimal Sensor Placement Methods.” (hereinafter JUNG).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends upon Claim 8, which depends on Claim 1. The combination of ENFERAD, PAN, and LV. Teach the limitations of Claim 8 however the combination does not teach the method of claim 8, wherein determining the set of reference modal participation coefficients corresponding to the set of eigenmodes associated with the vibration plate based on the target vibration position and the reference vibration field at the target vibration position comprises:
determining, for each discrete position of the preset number of discrete positions, a vibration field representation at the discrete position based on a measured mode shape of each eigenmode at the discrete position and an unknown modal participation coefficient corresponding to each eigenmode; and
adjusting a value of the modal participation coefficient corresponding to each eigenmode and taking values of respective modal participation coefficients that minimum a sum of differences between the vibration field representation at each discrete position and a corresponding reference vibration field as the set of reference modal participation coefficients.
JUNG teaches identifying modal participation factors using vibration signals and natural modes.
(Abs., pp. 381, “This study is concerned with the estimation of vibration-field of a cylindrical structure by modal expansion method(MEM). MEM is a technique that identifies modal participation factors using some of vibration signals and natural modes of the structure: The selection of sensor locations has a big influence on predicted vibration results.”)
JUNG teaches determining the modal participation factor vector from measured vibration response values and the corresponding modal matrix using a pseudoinverse, and teaches when the measurement points exceeds the number of modes, the modal participation factors are determined using the least-squares method, and thereafter uses the determined participation factors to reconstruct the vibration field.
(Id, pp.381-382, “On the other hand, for the eigenmodes of structures, if the finite element model is well implemented geometrically, it is relatively easier to reproduce the actual eigenmodes compared to transfer functions.”)
(pp.382,”In this study, to predict the vibration field of the structure, we use the modal expansion method, which starts from modal superposition theory, as shown in Equation (1). The mode extension method is a theory that determines the contribution of modes by using vibration signals obtained from certain response points on the structure surface and the unique modes present in the structure, and can be expressed as shown in equation (2)”).
PNG
media_image2.png
69
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(pp.382,”Here, {(ω)} is the vibration displacement vector obtained at some response points on the surface, and subsuperfer m represents the number of sensors. [] This modal matrix extracts only the value corresponding to the signal acquisition point from the modal matrix [Φ] of the entire structure and reconstructs it, with the superscript † defined as pseudo-inverse as shown in equation (3).”)
PNG
media_image3.png
71
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(pp.382,”Therefore, using equation (2), the contribution vector {(ω)} of each eigenmode can be estimated from some vibrational responses. At this time, the more measurement points (equations) m are estimated to be more than the number of modes used in the calculation (the number of unknowns) n, the more accurate and reasonable the result obtained according to the least squares method.”)
(pp.382,”The vibration field {x(ω)}N×1 of the structure according to frequency can be obtained using the contribution vector of the estimated natural mode using the method shown in equation (4).”)
PNG
media_image4.png
68
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The combination of ENFERAD , PAN , LV and JUNG, are analogous art because all four references are directed to the analyzing , representing, or controlling vibration responses of structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ JUNG’s known least-squares modal expansion technique to determine the modal participation coefficients used in the vibration field representation of the combination of ENFERAD, PAN, and LV because JUNG’s technique provides coefficient values that minimize the residual error between vibration response represented by the modal basis and the specified/measured vibration response values, thereby predictably providing an accurate modal reconstruction of the desired spatial vibration field.
Claim 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENFERAD in view of PAN, further in view of BEN DHIAB ET AL. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0283639 (hereinafter BEN). Regarding Claim 14, the combination of ENFERAD and PAN teaches the modal processing method incorporated into Claim 14, including modal characterization, localized vibrotactile generation, and determination of actuator driving information for controlled localized focusing. However, ENFERAD and PAN, do not expressly teach the system arrangement of Claim 14: a system for generating localized vibrotactile feedback, comprising: a vibration plate provided with a plurality of vibration components; laser vibration measurement means for measuring a set of eigenmodes associated with the vibration plate; processing means for obtaining a reference vibration field at the target vibration position and the set of eigenmodes obtained by the laser vibration measurement means and performing the method of claim 1; and a driving circuit for generating and outputting a driving signal to drive the plurality of vibration components based on driving control information from the processing means, so that the plurality of vibration components vibrate the vibration plate.
BEN teaches a haptic interface including a vibration plate, one or more piezoelectric actuators relative to the plate, and a control module generating actuator control signals.
(¶[0087], “It is noticed that, for the frequency range between 0 Hz and f1, the amplitude of the vibratory waves decreases exponentially with the distance to the source, the waves generated at these frequencies therefore consist of evanescent waves, i.e. which do not propagate. Furthermore, f1=1.9 kHz. Yet, the frequencies at which the human being is sensitive to touch are comprised between 0 and 1 kHz. Hence, it is possible to select a frequency lower than f1 and at which the user will be sensitive by the touch, to generate control signals to the actuators, and generate vibrations that are detectable by the user localised at the actuators. Hence, a localised vibrotactile feedback is produced.”)
BEN also teaches measuring movement of the vibration plate using a laser vibrometer.
([0090], “In FIG. 3, one could see the variation of amplitude as a function of the frequency measured at the centre of the actuator and at the point P on a real haptic interface using a vibrometer in contact with the touch surface.”)
PNG
media_image5.png
436
698
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0091], “Movement off the plane of the surface is measured by a laser vibrometer model Polytec® OFV-534/2570.”)
The combination of ENFERAD , PAN and BEN, are analogous art because all three references are directed to the controlling of vibration responses of vibrating structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known laser-vibration measurement arrangement from BEN’s teachings into ENFERAD and PAN’s modal haptic system to predictably permit the modal characteristics to be measured while preserving the plate’s vibration characteristics.
Regarding Claim 16, the system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of vibration components is a plurality of piezoelectric patches disposed about the vibration plate, the combination of references used in Claim 14, teaches embodiments having a plurality of piezoelectric actuators A1…An, distributed relative to the vibration plate and teaches piezoelectric actuators disposed as discrete piezoelectric elements/thin layers on the plate.
([0106], “In FIGS. 7A and 7B, one could see another embodiment of a haptic interface with vibrotactile feedback including a plurality of piezoelectric actuators A1, A2 . . . An with a rectangular shape whose length is aligned with the Y axis.”)
PNG
media_image6.png
248
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0119], “In the examples of FIGS. 9, 10 and 11, the piezoelectric actuators are independent of each other, the piezoelectric materials being deposited in a discrete manner.”)
([0120], “Alternatively, in FIG. 12, the piezoelectric actuators include a piezoelectric material layer 18 common to all actuators, a common electrode 20 covering a face of the piezoelectric material 18 and a plurality of electrodes 22 formed on the other face of the layer 18 and each defining actuators.”)
PNG
media_image7.png
614
571
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ such distributed piezoelectric actuators as the vibration components, combined with the teachings of ENFERAD and PAN and use the known distributed piezoelectric actuator arrangement of BEN for producing localized vibrotactile stimulation at different plate locations. The combination would predictably permit independently controlled vibration excitation at multiple locations of the plate.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of ENFERAD, PAN, and BEN, further in view of KARAMATH. The combination of ENFERAD, PAN, and BEN, teach all the limitations of Claim 14, of which Claim 17 depends upon, which shares similar limitations with Claims 2 and 11, other than it being a system as opposed to a method or apparatus. KARAMATH as shown above in Claims 2 and 11 recites the limitations of Claim 17 as they are similar other than for the reasons mentioned above. The combination of ENFERAD, PAN, BEN, and KARAMATH, are analogous art because all four references are directed to generating and controlling vibration responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibration system of ENFERAD, as modified by PAN and BEN, in view of KARAMATH, to select the frequencies of the vibration components such that a difference between the frequencies falls within a tactilely perceptible range. Such a modification would have predictably enabled the localized vibration system to provide vibration feedback within a frequency range readily perceptible by a user.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references applied to Claim 14, of which Claim 15 depends upon, further in view of HAJATI U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0059793. The references applied to Claim 14 teach the system of the claim, but do not expressly teach the system of claim 14, the driving circuit comprising a waveform generation circuit and a voltage amplification circuit, the waveform generation circuit generating, based on the driving control information, a multi-channel voltage signal for a plurality of channels having a waveform indicated by the driving control information; the voltage amplification circuit being used to perform voltage amplification on the multi- channel voltage signal to generate the driving signal for driving the plurality of vibration components. HAJATI teaches a motion controller configured to control a haptic actuator according to a desired motion defined by external commands or internally stored preset waveforms
([0117], “A motion controller 162″ controls the motion of the haptic actuator 140″ based upon closed-loop feedback to follow the desired motion defined by the external commands (e.g. coming from OS/third party apps supervised by the CPU) or internally stored pre-set waveforms, for example, as described above.”)
([0160], “A motion controller 562 controls the motion of the haptic actuator 540 based upon closed-loop feedback (e.g. via multi-channel control signals) to follow the desired motion defined by the external commands (e.g. coming from OS/third party apps supervised by the CPU) or internally stored pre-set waveforms, for example, as described above.”)
HAJATI also teaches a digital controller that generates optimum drive signals comprising voltage/current for driving the haptic actuator according to the desired motion
([0065], “A driver 33 drives the haptic actuator 30, and senses a drive voltage and drive current for the haptic actuator. The driver 33 may sense one or both of the drive voltage and drive current for the haptic actuator 30. In some embodiments, the driver 33 may drive the haptic actuator 30 at different frequencies, which, as will be described in further detail below, may be used to estimate the system or haptic actuator parameters. The driver 33 may be include a class D amplifier 35 and a step-up converter 36 coupled thereto for signal processing between the haptic actuator 30 and a closed-loop controller 60. Additionally, position data, for example, X-axis position data, from the position sensor 32 may be processed by a position sensing component 36 of the driver 33.”)
([0118], “The state observer 163″ estimates the states of the haptic actuator 140″ (such as, for example, displacement, velocity, current, etc.) from the noisy sensed data (position measured by Hall sensing, I, V, etc.). A digital controller 164″ generates optimum drive signals (voltage and/or current) and drives the haptic actuator 140″ to follow the desired motion.”)
([0161], “The state observer 563 estimates the states of the haptic actuator 540 (such as, for example, displacement, velocity, current, etc.) from the sensed data (position measured by the multi-channel I/V data etc.). A digital controller 564 generates optimum drive signals (voltage and/or current) and drives the haptic actuator 540 to follow the desired motion.”)
HAJATI also teaches that internal waveforms stored in memory may be provided to a task manager for generation of multi-channel control signals.
([0162]. “System parameters 565 are stored in the memory of the motion controller 562 and can be updated adaptively internally (by the controller itself) using adaptive control algorithms or externally (by a CPU 566 via offline calibration). These updated parameters are fed into the state observer 563 (e.g. a Kalman filter) and the digital controller 564 to improve performance. Applications 573 provide external arbitrary waveforms to a task manager 574, for example, based upon the context of the application. Internal waveforms 575, for example, stored in a memory, may also be provided to the task manager 574 for generation of multi-channel control signals.”)
HAJATI further teaches a driver/amplifier circuit that amplifies the output of the digital controller to drive the haptic actuator.
([0163], “A driver/amplifier circuit 567 amplifiers the output of the digital controller 564 to drive the haptic actuator 540, for example, via a class DG amplifier 568. The driver/amplifier circuit 567 monitors and senses the electrical input (current and voltage) to the haptic actuator 540 via I/V sensing circuitry 569 that senses or estimates both velocity (by combining and summing back EMF from all phases) and position (by sensing the back EMF of each phase with respect to each other phase). The driver/amplifier circuit 567 also includes a boost converter 570.”)
The combination of ENFERAD, PAN, BEN, and HAJATI, are analogous art because all four references are directed to the generating and controlling vibration responses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate the waveform-generation and driver/amplifier architecture of HAJATI , into the driving circuit of the system taught by the combination of ENFERAD, PAN, and BEN in order to convert the driving control information into respective electrical drive waveforms and amplify those signals to levels suitable for driving the plurality of vibration components. HAJATI expressly teaches generating multi-channel control signals from stored waveforms and using a driver/amplifier circuit to amplify controller output for driving a haptic actuator. Such a modification would have constituted the predictable use of known haptic-driving circuitry according to its established function and would permit the plurality of vibration components to be driven according to respective control waveforms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JUNG, B. K. & JEONG, W. B. (2015) Mode selection of modal expansion method estimating vibration field of washing machine. Journal of sound and vibration. [Online] 340343–353. discloses estimating vibration and radiated noise using mode selection applied modal expansion method (MEM)
BAI, MINGSIAN R. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0113020 discloses time-reversal based impact-localization and haptic feedback.
CHEN, DA-PENG Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 114428551 discloses the time reversal mirror principle, generating local vibration tactile stimulation at different positions to enhance the interaction experience of multiple fingers at the same time with touch screen contact.
KYUNGWOOK ET AL. Korean Patent No. KR 102971168 discloses a haptic device proving local feedback.
WANG ET AL. Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20120118675 discloses a filter design method for vibration localization of a panel and a vibration localization method of the panel by a filter designed by using the filter design method are provided to locally generate vibration in a specific area of the panel.
COLGATE ET AL. WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2009117125 discloses a haptic device that has a substrate with a touch surface and one or more actuators for vibrating the substrate in a multiplicity of higher resonant modes, each of which has a high enough frequency to be inaudible and high enough amplitude to create a friction reduction effect at a plurality of vibrating regions on the substrate touch surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DWAYNE MARSHALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Zimmerman Brian 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.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights