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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matilainen Antti et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20220126971).
Regarding claims 1, 17, 18-20, Matilainen et al. disclose a computer system for force feedback control of an input device of a marine vessel, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: control a force feedback unit to progressively increase a force feedback applied to the input device in response to a manual maneuvering of the input device towards a virtual stop position, the virtual stop position being defined in between an equilibrium position and a mechanical end position of a movable range of the input device, wherein the virtual stop position is a software-defined set point acting as an intermediate trigger for the input device, wherein the force feedback is controlled to be progressively increased until it reaches a maximum force feedback value upon said input device being positioned at the virtual stop position; and control the force feedback unit to reduce the force feedback applied to the input device at the virtual stop position in response to a force of a manual maneuvering of the input device exceeding the maximum force feedback value. Antti et al. is considered to teach the limitations as set forth as "A computer system for force feedback control of an input device of a marine vessel ( [0013]: "user interface apparatus 110 for controlling a marine vessel 100"; [0035]: "the mechanical stick 112 is configured to set a 154 control parameter by a linear motion, the mechanical block 114 is configured to set 154 a control parameter by a rotational motion one or more electric motors 118 are configured to give tactile feedback related to setting 154 a control parameter"; [0044], Fig 2: "FIG. 2 illustrates an example embodiment of the user interface apparatus 110"), the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: control a force feedback unit to progressively increase a force feedback applied to the input device in response to a manual maneuvering of the input device towards a virtual stop position (VSP) (Matilainen et al [0049]: "the one or more electric motors 118 are configured to give the tactile feedback for the selected control parameter as one or more of detents"; [0051]: "In FIG. 6A, the mechanical stick 112 is in the neutral position, and a detent 602 is felt when trying to move the mechanical stick 112 in the linear motion direction 600. The detent 602 feels like an inertia, i.e., the mechanical stick 112 tries to remain in the neutral position."), the virtual stop position (VSP) being defined in between an equilibrium position (EP) and a mechanical end position (MEP) of a movable range of the input device (D1, [0051], Fig 6A: "In FIG. 6A, the mechanical stick 112 is in the neutral position". Thus the stick position shown in D1, Fig 6A corresponds to the claimed equilibrium point; position fully up or fully down of the stick of Matilainen et al. correspond to the claimed mechanical end positions. In between those positions, different "detents" are provided, e.g. "604, 606, 608", and "restraints" are provided, e.g. 610, 612"; together, the detents and restraints correspond to the claimed virtual stock positions), wherein the virtual stop position (VSP) is a software-defined set point acting as an intermediate trigger for the input device (Matilainen et al., [0035]: "the mechanical stick 112 is configured to set a 154 control parameter by a linear motion"; [0053]: "In FIG. 6B, the user 160 has pulled the mechanical stick 112 to reverse with 50% power"), wherein the force feedback is controlled to be progressively increased until it reaches a maximum force feedback value upon said input device being positioned at the virtual stop position (VSP); and control the force feedback unit to reduce the force feedback applied to the input device at the virtual stop position (VSP) in response to a force of a manual maneuvering of the input device exceeding the maximum force feedback value (Matilainen et al. [0051]-[0052]: "The detent 602 feels like an inertia, i.e., the mechanical stick 112 tries to remain in the neutral position. However, as the force exerted by the user 160 to the mechanical stick 112 overcomes the inertia, the mechanical stick 112 starts to move. As shown in FIG. 6A, there are ten further detents 604, 606, 608 both for forward and reverse."; the claimed force feedback corresponds exactly to the feeling that is commonly referred-to as a "detent", and which is commonly used in mechanical parameter control; D1 uses "electric motors 118" to provide haptic effects that feel like detents, as claimed)."
Regarding claims 2, 13, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the movable range of the input device comprises a plurality of virtual stop positions, wherein the force feedback is controlled to be progressively increased until it reaches a maximum force feedback value upon said input device being positioned at either one of the plurality of virtual stop positions, and wherein the force feedback is controlled to be reduced at said either one of the plurality of virtual stop positions in response to a force of a manual maneuvering exceeding a maximum force feedback value. (See Matilainen et al. disclosed (at paragraph [0051]-[0052], Fig 6A: several detents are provided in the same direction, such as 604 and 606; each detent provides a comparable haptic feeling, in which the user needs to overcome some maximum force barrier to be able to get to the next detent, irrespective of the direction of the movement of the stick).
Regarding claim 3, Matilainen et al. discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the maximum force feedback value differently for each one of the plurality of virtual stop positions, wherein maximum force feedback values for virtual stop positions closer to the mechanical end position are set higher than virtual stop positions closer to the equilibrium position. ( See paragraph [0051]-[0052], Fig 6A: the "restraints 610, 612" are closer to the mechanical end position and provide a higher maximum force feedback, than the detents).
Regarding claim 4, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the maximum force feedback value approximately at the same value for each one of the plurality of virtual stop positions.as disclosed in paragraph [0051]-[0052], Fig 6A: the "detents 604, 606, 608" have similar maximum force feedback, since they all provide the same "detent" feeling).
Regarding claim 7, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the progressive increase of the force feedback comprises a plurality of step-wise increments applied at predefined positions in relation to a virtual stop position (See paragraph 0051-0052; Fig. 6A: the "detents 604, 606, 608" are set at certain angular distances from the initial position of the stick shown in Fig 6A).
Regarding claims 8, 16, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set a virtual stop position as an angular or distance offset in relation to an angle or position of the mechanical end position or the equilibrium position (See paragraph 0036: the configuration of the input device "may be automatic to fit the navigation circumstances"; (See paragraph [0053]-[0055]: The maximum force feedback value is set according to vessel characteristics: at lower motor power (less than 70%), the detents provide guidance but can be overcome, while at higher motor power (70%) a restraint provides a stop to avoid overloading the motor).
Regarding claims 9, 15, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set a maximum force feedback value based on one or more of ambient operating conditions, input device characteristics, vessel characteristics, operational modes, vessel operating conditions, operator preferences, surroundings data, IMU data, and safety and regulatory data (See paragraph [0039]: "the user interface apparatus 110 may offer an integrated control approach: the distinct tactile (or haptic force) and visual feedback settings enable setting different control parameters Besides tactile and visual feedback, also audio feedback may be controlled and given by the user interface apparatus 110.")
Regarding claim 10, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause emission of an audible alert in response to a force of a manual maneuvering exceeding a maximum force feedback value (See paragraph [0055]: "when the mechanical stick 112 is moved in the region 620, a lighter friction is felt, whereas when the mechanical stick 112 is moved in either region 622 or 624, a harder friction is felt.")
Regarding claim 11, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause display of a visual indicator on a display unit of the marine vessel in response to a force of a manual maneuvering exceeding a maximum force feedback value (See paragraph [0035], [0049]: "the mechanical stick 112 is configured to set a 154 control parameter by a linear motion, the mechanical block 114 is configured to set 154 a control parameter by a rotational motion, and the mechanical ring 116 is configured to set 154 one or more electric motors 118 are configured to give tactile feedback related to setting 154 a control parameter the one or more electric motors 118 are configured to give the tactile feedback for the selected control parameter as one or more of detents").
Regarding claim 12, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control a force attenuation unit to apply an attenuation force to the input device in response to a force of a manual maneuvering of the input device exceeding a maximum force feedback value (See paragraph [0013]-[0015], Fig 1A: "vessel 100" contains "user interface apparatus 110").
Regarding claim 14, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain positioning data of the input device from a positioning sensor, wherein the force feedback control is based on the positioning data (See paragraph 0017; a sensor fusion-based speedlog, a satellite positioning receiver of a Global Navigation Satellite System including GPS, Glonass, Galileo or Beidou, etc.), one or more displays, a steering system configured to steer the marine vessel, and a propulsion system configured to steer the marine vessel and a propulsion system configured to propel the marine vessel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matilainen et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20220126971).
Regarding claims 5-6, Matilainen et al. disclose wherein the progressive increase of the force feedback comprises a linear function in relation to a displacement of the input device with respect to a virtual stop position; wherein the progressive increase of the force feedback comprises an exponential function configured to exponentially increase the closer the input device has been moved towards a virtual stop position. (considered obvious as in Matilainen et al. paragraph [0049]-[0052], [0056]). In Matilainen et al., "the one or more electric motors 118 are configured to give the tactile feedback for the selected control parameter as one or more of detents"; the one or more electric motors 118 may also give tactile feedback as a spring force". It is known that spring forces, as that mentioned in Antti et al., change linearly with the distance travelled. Matilainen et al. does not describe in detail how to drive the motors so that they provide a "tactile feedback" that feels like a "detent". However, when faced with the problem of implementing the driving of the motors so as to provide a detent effect, it would be obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to couple the force effect with the distance travelled, e.g. in a linear or exponential manner, and s/he would choose such an implementation without need for inventive skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,201,897) disclose a gamepad and a joystick feedback force device therefor are disclosed. The joystick feedback force device comprises a joystick that is configured to accept a user's operation and is rotatably installed in a casing of the gamepad. The joystick feedback force device further comprises a torque output device, and an output shaft of the torque output device is connected with a rotating shaft of the joystick, so that a torque is applied to the rotating shaft to form a feedback force to the joystick.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights