Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group II, claims 8-14, and of Species 2 (FIG. 6) in the reply filed 20 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 was canceled by that reply.
Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The restriction requirement mailed 22 June 2026 is clarified as follows: the group of claims 16-21 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), inadvertently denominated a second Group II in that requirement, is renumbered Group III. The inventions and their claim rosters are otherwise unchanged.
The traversal is on the grounds that
(a) the requirement did not identify the prior art or explain why the shared technical feature makes no contribution over it;
(b) the method, device, and computer-readable-medium claims are parallel presentations of the same subject matter;
(c) claim 8 is generic to the disclosed species; and
(d) the International Searching Authority did not find lack of unity.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive, for the reasons below.
(a) The completed unity showing.
Because this application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. § 371, the propriety of restriction is governed by the unity-of-invention standard of 37 CFR 1.475 (MPEP §§ 1850, 1893.03(d)).
Groups I-III share the technical feature recited in each of independent claims 1, 8, and 16: obtaining, from an immersive scene description, a data structure representative of an interactive haptic action, the data structure defining a behavior element that links a trigger element defining a trigger condition to an action element associated with a haptic effect; responsive to an event corresponding to the trigger condition, determining parameters of the haptic effect comprising at least a type of haptic effect and a haptic signal; and providing haptic data for rendering.
That shared feature is not a special technical feature, because it makes no contribution over the prior art in view of Danieau, You, and Wu, as demonstrated by the rejections of record below (see paragraphs 20-23, applying Danieau’s scene-placed haptic objects whose rendering is conditioned on user location and timeline activation, You’s glTF extended-reality scene descriptions, and Wu’s event-responsive determination of haptic-effect parameters).
Where the common feature fails a posteriori, the groups lack unity of invention, and restriction between them is proper. 37 CFR 1.475(a); MPEP § 1850.
This showing completes the requirement; the alleged omission of the supporting art from the 22 June 2026 requirement is thereby cured.
(b) Statutory-category parallelism.
Unity of invention under 37 CFR 1.475 does not turn on whether claims are presented as a method, an apparatus, and a carrier for the method; combinations of categories are permitted only where the required single general inventive concept is present. 37 CFR 1.475(b).
Because the shared technical feature makes no contribution over the prior art (paragraph 5), the parallel drafting of Groups I-III does not supply unity, and this argument stands or falls with argument (a).
(c) Genericness of claim 8.
Applicant’s contention that claim 8 is generic to the disclosed species is noted but need not be reached: every pending claim of elected Group II is being examined herein, and no claim is withdrawn on species grounds.
The species remain patentably distinct as set out in the 22 June 2026 requirement: each of FIGS. 5-9 presents a mutually exclusive schema for attaching the interactivity data structure -- at the scene level (FIG. 5), at the level of an individual action (FIG. 6, elected), at the level of a scene node (FIG. 7), at the level of a media item (FIG. 8), and at the level of a perception/channel (FIG. 9) -- and the claims will require mutually exclusive characteristics when limited thereto.
Applicant’s own election reply (pp. 2-3, mapping claims 9-14 to FIG. 6 elements 641-650) confirms the elected attachment schema. The species election requirement is maintained.
(d) The international phase.
The International Searching Authority’s unity determination does not control national-stage examination; the Office makes its own determination under 37 CFR 1.475 (MPEP § 1893.03(d)).
It is additionally observed that the Written Opinion found each of claims 1-16 to lack an inventive step over the art of record (WOSA, Box V), consistent with the a posteriori analysis of paragraph 5 under the different framework applied here.
The requirement for restriction and for election of species is accordingly maintained, and, applicant’s traversal having been found unpersuasive, the requirement is hereby made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (EP 23305357.8 and EP 23305464.2). This application is a § 371 national stage of PCT/EP2024/056437, filed 11 March 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12 September 2025 has been considered; an initialed copy of form PTO/SB/08 accompanied the Office action of 22 June 2026.
Claim Rejections -- 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 -- scope of the conjunction.
Claim 8 recites that the data structure is associated with a virtual object or with an immersive scene and defines a behavior element.
It cannot be determined whether the requirement that the data structure define a behavior element attaches to both alternatives of the preceding or, or only to the second.
At least the following constructions are plausible on the claim language:
(i) the data structure is associated with a virtual object, or is associated with an immersive scene and defines a behavior element -- under which a data structure associated with a virtual object need not define a behavior element at all;
(ii) the data structure is associated with a virtual object or with an immersive scene, and in either case defines a behavior element; and
(iii) the data structure is associated with a virtual object, or with a combination of an immersive scene and a defined behavior element.
These constructions differ materially in scope.
Where a claim is amenable to more than one plausible construction, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is appropriate. MPEP § 2173.02(I); Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); see also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claims 9-14 are rejected as depending from claim 8 and incorporating the same indefinite limitation.
Claim 8 -- the recited parameters.
Claim 8 further recites that the parameters comprise at least a type of haptic effect and a haptic signal for the haptic effect.
It cannot be determined whether the modifier a type of governs only the first recited parameter or also the second -- that is, whether the second parameter is (i) a haptic signal itself, or (ii) a type of haptic signal.
The specification does not resolve the ambiguity; to the contrary, the corresponding passage of the specification recites that the parameters comprise at least a type of haptic effect and a perception of haptic signal for the haptic effect, in which each parameter is expressed as a separate X of Y construction.
The claim omits the words a perception of, leaving the intended parallelism, and hence the identity of the second recited parameter, indeterminate.
The same ambiguity carries into the final clause, which recites providing haptic data based at least on the type of haptic effect and the haptic signal for the haptic effect.
Claims 9-14 are rejected as depending from claim 8 and incorporating the same indefinite limitations.
Claim 9.
Claim 9 recites that the parameters further comprise an identification of a haptic signal to be provided to a haptic actuator.
Claim 8 has already recited that the parameters comprise a haptic signal for the haptic effect.
Use of the indefinite article in claim 9 leaves unclear whether the haptic signal of claim 9 is the haptic signal already recited in claim 8 or a further, distinct signal, and correspondingly whether claim 9 requires one signal or two.
Claim 12.
Claim 12 recites an indication that a selected haptic actuator should return to a neutral position.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recited selection: claim 12 depends from claim 8, which recites neither a haptic actuator nor any selection of one.
The recitation of a selected haptic actuator presupposes a selection step or selecting element that appears nowhere in claim 8 or claim 12, and it cannot be determined what performs the selection, from what set the actuator is selected, or on what basis.
It is noted that a selection of a haptic actuator is recited in claim 10, but claim 12 does not depend from claim 10.
Claim 13.
Claim 13 recites that the control flag is selected from a set comprising pre-determined values at least for starting, pausing, resuming, and stopping the rendering of the haptic data.
Claim 13 is indefinite where it specifies pre-determined, since pre-determined merely means determined beforehand.
For example, see Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Marzall, Comr. Pats., 84 USPQ 180 (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what claimed element(s), if any, is/are intended to perform the determining. Determined by what claimed element(s), if any?
It would be similarly unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what claimed event(s)/step(s), if any, is/are intended to occur only after the pre-determining. Determined when? Prior to what claimed event(s)/step(s), if any?
The specification does not supply the missing information, the term pre-determined appearing nowhere in the written description.
Claim 14 is rejected as depending from claim 13 and incorporating the same indefinite limitation.
The prior-art rejections set forth below are made notwithstanding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and without speculation as to claim scope: for each limitation addressed above, the art is applied under the broadest of the plausible constructions identified, which is expressly identified where it is pertinent.
Applicant’s correction of the informalities identified in paragraphs 13-17 may necessitate a corresponding adjustment of the rejections.
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.
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danieau et al. (“HFX Studio: Haptic Editor for Full-Body Immersive Experiences”, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), VRST ‘18: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Article No. 37, 28 November 2018, 9 pages, of record) in view of You et al. (US 2022/0108534 A1) and Wu et al. (US 2018/0232051 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Danieau discloses a device configured to:
obtain, from an immersive scene description, a data structure representative of an interactive haptic action [Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.2: “haptic objects that the user may touch”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.2: “implemented as a new type of GameObject”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.1: “haptic asset file (vibration, pressure or temperature)”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.1: “can be saved, modified and used in other projects”; Fig. 4],
wherein the data structure is associated with a virtual object or with an immersive scene [Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.2: “can be parented to any visible object”] and
defines a behavior element, wherein the behavior element links at least one trigger element defining a trigger condition, to at least one action element defining an action to be performed [Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.2: “Haptic feedback is rendered when the user is located in the haptic object and when this one is activated in the timeline”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.2: “Once located in the scene, allocentric effects also have to be added to a custom track of the timeline”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2: “Multiple timelines can be created and triggered when necessary”; Danieau p. 7, § 4.2.1: “it is the only link between the effect and the scene”; Danieau p. 7, § 4.2.1: “an allocentric track is dedicated to one haptic object”], and
wherein the at least one action element is associated with a haptic effect [Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.2: “Four effects may be added (temperature, vibration, pressure or wind)”];
responsive to an event corresponding to the trigger condition, determine parameters of the haptic effect [Danieau p. 5, § 3.3.2: “the list of vertices inside the haptic object is computed”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.1: “The parameters of the effect can be also tuned (frequency, amplitude, intensity depending on the nature of the effect)”],
wherein the parameters comprise at least a type of haptic effect and a haptic signal for the haptic effect [Danieau p. 5, § 3.3.2: “The haptic data contain the list of vertices, and also include the type of the effect (vibration, temperature, wind, and pressure), the timestamp”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.2: “Extra parameters are available to change the shape (cuboid or sphere) or characteristics (temperature, frequency, wind force)”]; and
provide haptic data for rendering the haptic effect based at least on the type of haptic effect and the haptic signal for the haptic effect [Danieau p. 6, § 3.3.2: “distribute haptic data to the corresponding haptic devices”; Danieau p. 6, § 3.3.2: “it sends these data to all devices located on the user’s forearm”] (e.g., see Danieau pp. 4-6, §§ 3.2-3.3.2, Figs. 4 and 7).
Claim interpretation applied in this ground.
Consistent with paragraph 18, the element addressed in paragraph 13 is applied under construction (ii) -- the data structure is associated with a virtual object or with an immersive scene, and in either case defines a behavior element -- which is the construction most favorable to applicant and the narrowest of the three; the ground is therefore equally applicable under constructions (i) and (iii).
The element addressed in paragraph 14 is applied under the construction that the recited parameters are (a) a type of haptic effect and (b) a haptic signal, that being the construction consistent with the dependent claims and with the specification.
On these constructions, Danieau’s dedicated pairing of a haptic object with its timeline track is the claimed behavior element: the track links the trigger elements -- the spatial condition that the user be located in the haptic object and the temporal condition that the track be activated in the timeline, each a trigger condition -- to the action element, namely the effect specification carried by the haptic asset file, which is performed when those conditions are satisfied.
Danieau’s own characterization of the timeline entry as the only link between the effect and the scene (p. 7, § 4.2.1, quoted above) reflects that linking structure.
This reading is consistent with You, whose extended-reality descriptions likewise comprise bound, linked elements [You claim 1: “binding the extended reality anchors and the extended reality objects to create corresponding one or more links between the extended reality anchors and the extended reality objects”].
Danieau does not expressly denominate its Unity scene an immersive scene description, nor does it disclose expressing the scene in a standardized transmissible description format, nor expressly recite a processor.
You cures each point. You discloses network-based spatial computing for extended reality in which the world [You Paragraph 103: should be described by a structural representation] in a format where [You Paragraph 103: glTF preserves full hierarchical scenes with nodes, meshes, cameras and materials], glTF being a [You Paragraph 103: vendor- and runtime-neutral format that can be loaded and rendered efficiently].
The system will [You Paragraph 67: Provide XR description in a representational format (e.g., glTF) upon request of any client, e.g., a user equipment (UE), device], whereby the client device obtains the immersive scene description.
An [You Paragraph 121: XR object can be interactive (e.g., touch / move / write / talk / poke) and may have haptic feedback].
The embodiments are [You Paragraph 293: implemented in software (executed by one or more processors), hardware] or combinations thereof, supplying the claimed device comprising a processor configured to perform the recited operations.
You is analogous art, being directed to descriptions of immersive/extended-reality scenes including interactive objects with haptic feedback -- the same field as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to express Danieau’s haptically-augmented scene and asset structures in a standardized scene-description format as taught by You, and to implement Danieau’s editor and Haptic Engine on a processor as You teaches, in order to obtain You’s expressly stated benefit of a vendor- and runtime-neutral representation that can be loaded and rendered efficiently while preserving full hierarchical scenes (You Paragraph 103, quoted above).
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
To the extent Danieau’s runtime is regarded as playing back designer-authored effect parameters rather than determining parameters responsive to the event, Wu expressly supplies event-responsive determination.
Wu discloses a dynamic haptics generator: [Wu Paragraph 35: dynamically generates haptic effects commands for the haptic output devices based on the outputs of event detector 210, event data collector 220, user data collector 230];
the system [Wu Paragraph 49: analyzes the detected event’s characteristics, the user’s status, the available haptic playback devices] and
generates the effects accordingly, the generated parameters depending on, e.g., [Wu Paragraph 51: relative proximity of user 422 or avatar 420 and the event estimated using the event’s and the user’s three-dimensional locations] and on the nature of the event: [Wu Paragraph 56: explosion versus collision implies different frequencies of vibration].
The processor [Wu Paragraph 21: may transmit a haptic signal associated with a generated haptic effect to actuator 122] -- the claimed haptic signal.
Wu is analogous art, being directed to generating localized haptic effects responsive to detected events for viewers and avatars in video, virtual-reality, and game content -- reasonably pertinent to conditioning haptic effects on scene events.
It would have been obvious to further modify the Danieau-You system so that, upon the trigger condition being met, the parameters of the haptic effect (including the effect type and the haptic signal) are determined dynamically as taught by Wu, in order to match the rendered effect to the particular event and to the user’s situation -- e.g., [Wu Paragraph 52: stronger effect when closer vs. weaker effect when further apart] and effect frequencies suited to the nature of the event (Wu Paragraph 56, quoted above) -- and to permit effects for events the viewer cannot see, as Wu contemplates: [Wu Paragraph 32: design haptic effects for the event that cannot be seen by the viewer].
KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Danieau in view of You and Wu renders obvious the device of claim 8, wherein the parameters of the haptic effect further comprise an identification of a haptic signal to be provided to a haptic actuator [Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.1: “haptic asset file (vibration, pressure or temperature)”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2.1: “can be saved, modified and used in other projects”; Danieau p. 5, § 3.3.2: “The haptic data contain the list of vertices, and also include the type of the effect (vibration, temperature, wind, and pressure), the timestamp”; Wu Paragraph 21: may transmit a haptic signal associated with a generated haptic effect to actuator 122] -- the saved and re-used haptic asset file, together with the effect-type field carried in the haptic data, identifying which stored signal is routed to the actuator.
Regarding claim 10, Danieau in view of You and Wu renders obvious the device of claim 8, wherein the parameters of the haptic effect further comprise a mask representing at least one part of a body on which the effect should be applied [Danieau p. 3, § 3.1: “groups of vertices were selected to represent the different body parts”; Danieau p. 5, § 3.3.2: “the list of vertices inside the haptic object is computed”;
PNG
media_image2.png
5
1
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Danieau p. 7, § 4.2.4: “The same vertices will be sent to the renderer”] -- the designated vertex set over the body model being a mask representing the body part(s) -- and wherein the haptic data provided for rendering the haptic effect further comprise a selection of a haptic actuator corresponding to the at least one part of the body on which the effect should be applied [Danieau p. 6, § 3.3.2: “compares the list of vertices of the haptic data to the vertices in the haptic device configuration files”; Danieau p. 6, § 3.3.2: “it sends these data to all devices located on the user’s forearm”; Wu Paragraph 34: Actuator determinator 240 is configured to determine the number, location and types of haptic output devices or actuators].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danieau in view of You and Wu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Peurach et al. (US 2007/0130212 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination renders obvious the device of claim 8, wherein the parameters of the haptic effect further comprise an identification of a haptic texture determining a value of the haptic effect based on a position within the haptic texture [Peurach Paragraph 105: the selection from a pre-existing library of previously created groupings of attributes and their values; Peurach Paragraph 105: a ‘hardwood surface’ may have a specific texture attribute (forces defined in an array located relative to a surface coordinate system--see FIG. 16); Fig. 16; Peurach Paragraph 129: 2 dimensional Surface Texture--similar to texture mapping in 3D graphics, provides complete control over surface feels].
Danieau, You, and Wu do not expressly disclose a haptic texture whose effect value varies with position within the texture.
Peurach does, as cited: the named texture attribute, identified by selection from the material library, defines forces in an array indexed on surface coordinates, so that the value of the haptic effect is determined by the position within the texture.
Peurach is analogous art, being directed to haptic authoring in which databases encoding hierarchical geometric data [Peurach Paragraph 9: combine surface attribution and touch or haptic attribution], for virtual objects with which an avatar collides: [Peurach Paragraph 39: the collision event generates response forces] -- the same field of authored haptic feedback for virtual scenes.
It would have been obvious to further provide the haptic effects of the Danieau-You-Wu system with an identified haptic texture as taught by Peurach, in order to give the designer complete control over surface feels (Peurach Paragraph 129, quoted above) and thereby render spatially varying surface sensations that a single uniform parameter set cannot express.
KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danieau in view of You and Wu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Doyen et al. (EP 3121685 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination renders obvious the device of claim 8, wherein the parameters of the haptic effect further comprise a washout flag [Doyen Paragraph 1: a haptic audiovisual signal comprising a washout flag; Doyen Paragraph 29: the effect type definition, through the ‘washout’ flag 403 that also defines the type of washout; Doyen Paragraph 30: a new set of flags named ‘washoutFlags’ is defined], and
wherein the haptic data provided for rendering the haptic effect further comprise an indication that a selected haptic actuator should return to a neutral position [Doyen Paragraph 6: moving back to the original position between two effects is called ‘washout’; Doyen Paragraph 24: the haptic device returns to the default position at the end of the first effect; Doyen Paragraph 18: default values such as a default neutral position].
The Danieau-You-Wu combination does not disclose a washout flag among the effect parameters.
Doyen does, as cited, teaching a signal-borne washout flag within the effect-type definition that causes the rendering device to return the haptic actuator to its default (neutral) position, computed per the device: [Doyen claim 1: computing (650) the haptic command representative of the haptic washout effect, according to device capabilities].
Doyen is analogous art, being directed to haptic audiovisual signals and their rendering on haptic actuators -- the same field.
It would have been obvious to further include, among the parameters of the haptic effect in the Danieau-You-Wu system, a washout flag as taught by Doyen, so that the rendering device [Doyen Paragraph 8: may adapt the washout regarding its physical limitations as well as the user preferences] -- enabling content-signaled, device-adapted resets between effects that the content creator cannot pre-plan for unknown devices.
As to the selection of the actuator addressed in paragraph 16, the ground is applied on the construction that the actuator to which the washout indication pertains is the actuator to which the haptic data is routed, which Danieau supplies (p. 6, § 3.3.2, quoted above).
KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danieau in view of You and Wu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Unity (Unity 2017.4 documentation, copies of record per the accompanying PTO-892: PlayableDirector, publication date: 6 November 2019 (page bearing Built 2019-11-06), archived 9 November 2019; DirectorWrapMode, publication date: 5 June 2020; Manual, Playable Director component, publication date: 5 June 2020).
Regarding claim 13, the combination renders obvious the device of claim 8, wherein the parameters of the haptic effect further comprise a control flag for controlling the rendering of the haptic data, and wherein the control flag is selected from a set comprising pre-determined values at least for starting, pausing, resuming, and stopping the rendering of the haptic data [Unity PlayableDirector p. 2: “and starts playback”; Unity PlayableDirector p. 2: “Pauses playback of the currently running playable”; Unity PlayableDirector p. 2: “Resume playing a paused playable”; Unity PlayableDirector p. 2: “Stops playback of the current Playable and destroys the corresponding graph”].
Regarding claim 14, the combination renders obvious the device of claim 13, wherein the parameters of the haptic effect further comprise a flag for controlling whether the rendering of the haptic data should be continuously looping [Unity DirectorWrapMode p. 1: “Loop back to zero time and continue playing”; Unity Manual p. 3: “Plays the sequence repeatedly until playback is interrupted”] -- the wrap-mode value being a stored component field selected from the set Hold, Loop, and None.
The Danieau-You-Wu combination does not expressly disclose a control flag whose values include starting, pausing, resuming, and stopping the rendering, nor a flag selecting continuously looping rendering.
Unity does, as cited. Unity is analogous art -- indeed, it documents the very timeline system on which Danieau is built: Danieau states [Danieau p. 4, § 3.2: “is based on Unity”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2: “Since version 2017, it features a timeline system”; Danieau p. 4, § 3.2: “We have extended this timeline system to support haptic effects”].
It would have been obvious to control the rendering of Danieau’s haptic tracks through the documented control operations of the platform’s own playable director- start, pause, resume, and stop -- and to select the documented Loop wrap mode where the haptic sequence is to repeat continuously, this being no more than the ordinary, documented operation of the very timeline system Danieau extends, with the predictable result of transport control and repetition of the haptic rendering.
KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results); Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Rimon et al., US 2016/0274662 A1 (glove-based haptic feedback localized to parts of the hand in immersive environments).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM).
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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
28 August 2026
Prosecution Insights