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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 5 should be moved to the center of the page.
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 active feedback device from claims 1 and 24
the actuator controller from claim 8
the transmission mechanism from claims 17 and 18
the at least one further second mechanical motion limitation device from claim 22
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Applicant uses a hyphen throughout the specification when a word is at the end of a line of a paragraph. For example, Page 1, lines 11-12, recites “me-chanical” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --mechanical--. There are numerous instances of this throughout the specification. The Applicant is advised to review the specification and correct every instance.
Page 10, lines 28-29, recites “a haptic interaction simulation device” which should be changed to --a haptic interaction simulation device of a watch interaction simulator-- to make it clear that Figure 18 shows a watch interaction simulator.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 29, recites “with the with the second mechanical” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --with the second mechanical--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 27 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.
Claim 1, lines 30-31, recites “a motion range between the first linkage member (FLM) and the second linkage member (SLM)” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the motion range between the first linkage member and the second linkage member from lines 30-31 and the predefined available motion range between the first linkage member and the second linkage member from lines 22-24. Is the Applicant referring to the same motion range in both limitations? How are the two motion ranges different from each other?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the controllable active actuator" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the actuator controller" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 discloses “an actuator controller”, but claim 9 does not depend from claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the control member" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27, lines 3-4, recites “according to one of the claims 1 to 21 is adapted to constrain and/or lock” which is indefinite because (1) lines 1-2 of claim 27 discloses “to claim 24” which leads one to believe that the Applicant can only refer to the at least one adjustable mechanical motion range limitation apparatus from claim 24, and (2) the Applicant has cancelled numerous claims in the range of claims 1-21 thus it is unclear how the Applicant is referring back to previously canceled claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 24 and 27, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US 9,399,298 B2).
Regarding claim 24, Kang discloses a haptic device comprising:
a pair of linkage members (26’’’, 34’’’, 82),
an active feedback device (50) for providing active force and/or torque feedback towards a user of the haptic device,
a moveable user interface member (62),
wherein the pair of linkage members comprises a first linkage member (34’’’, 82) and a second linkage member (26’’’) being movable in relation to each other, a motion range of the pair of linkage members controls a motion range of the moveable user interface member (the movement of 82 is limited by 74 and 78 of 26’’’),
the haptic device further comprising at least one adjustable mechanical motion range limitation apparatus (30, 78).
Regarding claim 27, Kang discloses that at least one of the at least one adjustable mechanical motion range limitation apparatus according to one of the claims 1 to 21 is adapted to constrain and/or lock at least one translational motion and/or at least one rotational motion of the moveable user interface member (the movement of 82 is limited by 74 and 78 of 26’’’ when 34’’’ rotates in at least one rotational motion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 28 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The current prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination of elements recited in claim 1. Kang discloses a haptic device comprised of a first linkage member, a second linkage member that is movable relative to the first linkage member, an active feedback device for providing active force and/or torque feedback towards a user of the haptic device, a moveable user interface member, a motion range of the pair of linkage members controlling a motion range of the moveable user interface member, and the haptic device further comprising at least one adjustable mechanical motion range limitation apparatus. Kang does not disclose a first mechanical motion limitation device that is independently moveable from the active feedback device, in relation to the first linkage member, a second mechanical motion limitation device being coupled to the second linkage member, the first mechanical motion limitation device having, in relation to the first linkage member, a release position in which the first mechanical motion limitation device and the second mechanical motion limitation device cannot engage, so that a predefined available motion range between the first linkage member and the second linkage member is not limited, and the first mechanical motion limitation device having, in relation to the first linkage member, a lock position in which the first mechanical motion limitation device mechanically engages with the with the second mechanical motion limitation device, thereby at least limiting a motion range between the first linkage member and the second linkage member so that the available motion range between the first linkage member and the second linkage member is limited to a defined limited motion range. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose, teach, or render obvious the adjustable mechanical motion range limitation apparatus as currently claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
K. L. Wallace (US 3,012,447 A) discloses a rotational mechanism that has a motion limiting structure that prevents a rotating disk from rotating more than two revolutions.
Reekers (US 8,763,488 B2) discloses a robot with a motion limiting mechanism comprised of two sliding plates and a damping element between them, and each sliding plate is configured to engage a respective stop face of two limiting walls of a slider member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617