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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 December 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “…then reflected the reflector…” in line 6 should be “…then reflected by the reflector” for further clarity.
Claim 2: “the magnitude and direction of force” in lines 5, 7, and 10-11 respectively should be “the magnitude and the direction of the force” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 3: “the magnitude and direction of force” in lines 15 and 18 respectively should be “the magnitude and the direction of the force” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 4: “the magnitude and direction of force” in lines 8 and 11 respectively should be “the magnitude and the direction of the force”; “moment i” in line 15 should be “the moment i”; and “moment i+1” in line 16 should be “the moment i+1” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 5: “the magnitude and direction of force” in lines 5, 7, and 10-11 respectively should be “the magnitude and the direction of the force” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 6: “the magnitude and direction of force” in lines 15 and 18 respectively should be “the magnitude and the direction of the force” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 7: “the magnitude and direction of force” in line 5 should be “the magnitude and the direction of the force”; and “the magnitude and direction of the force” in line 8 should be “the magnitude and the direction of the force” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, “a photo detector disposed on a base of the tactile sensor and evenly disposed around the photodetector” in lines 2-3 is unclear. How is the photodetector evenly disposed around the photodetector? Additionally, “the at least eight light sources” in line 6 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, “six degrees of freedom” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 2 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same six degrees of freedom mentioned previously or a different six degrees of freedom? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same six degrees of freedom mentioned previously. Additionally, “changes” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 2 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same changes mentioned previously or different changes? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same changes mentioned previously. Additionally, “a direction of translation” in line 11 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in line 8 of the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same direction of translation mentioned previously or a different direction of translation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same direction of translation mentioned previously.
Claims 3-4 are rejected for their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, “a direction of translation” in lines 16 and 18-19 respectively is unclear as these limitations have been mentioned previously in claim 2, on which claim 3 is dependent. Are these limitations referring to the same direction of translation mentioned previously or different directions of translation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same direction of translation mentioned previously. Additionally, “a first mapping relation” in line 17 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 2, on which claim 3 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same first mapping relation mentioned previously or a different first mapping relation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same first mapping relation mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 4, “a direction of translation” in lines 9 and 11-12 respectively is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 2, on which claim 4 is dependent. Are these limitations referring to the same direction of translation mentioned previously or different directions of translation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same direction of translation mentioned previously. Additionally, “a first mapping relation” in line 10 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 2, on which claim 4 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same first mapping relation mentioned previously or a different first mapping relation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same first mapping relation mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 5, “light intensity” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 5 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light intensity mentioned previously or a different light intensity? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same light intensity mentioned previously. Additionally, “a photo detector” in lines 1-2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 5 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same photo detector mentioned previously or a different photo detector? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same photo detector mentioned previously. Additionally, “six degrees of freedom” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 5 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same six degrees of freedom mentioned previously or a different six degrees of freedom? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same six degrees of freedom mentioned previously. Additionally, “changes” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 5 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same changes mentioned previously or different changes? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same changes mentioned previously. Additionally, “a direction of rotation” in line 11 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in line 8 of the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same direction of rotation mentioned previously or a different direction of rotation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the same direction of rotation mentioned previously.
Claim 6 is rejected for its dependency on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, “the first x-axis light source” in line 11 and “the second x-axis light source” in line 13 both lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore both unclear. Additionally, “a direction of rotation” in lines 16 and 18-19 respectively are unclear as these limitations have been mentioned previously in claim 5, on which claim 6 is dependent. Are these limitations referring to the same direction of rotation mentioned previously or different directions of rotation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same direction of rotation mentioned previously. Additionally, “a second mapping relation” in line 17 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 5, on which claim 6 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same second mapping relation mentioned previously or a different second mapping relation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same second mapping relation mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 7, “light intensity” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 7 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light intensity mentioned previously or a different light intensity? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light intensity mentioned previously. Additionally, “six degrees of freedom” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 7 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same six degrees of freedom mentioned previously or a different six degrees of freedom? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same six degrees of freedom mentioned previously. Additionally, “changes” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 7 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same changes mentioned previously or different changes? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as referring to the same changes mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 9, “the elastomer support housing” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Regarding claim 10, “the elastomer support housing” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12339143 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12339143 teaches a method for detecting a touch event using a tactile sensor (claim 1, line 1), wherein the tactile sensor includes a photo detector disposed on a base of the tactile sensor (claim 1, lines 6-8) and evenly disposed around the photo detector on the base (claim 1, lines 7-11), and a reflector disposed above the photo detector (claim 1, lines 11-13), the method comprising: acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector for light generated by each of the at least eight light sources and then reflected the reflector separately (claim 1, lines 14-16); and measuring at least one of magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in six degrees of freedom based on changes in the light intensity (claim 1, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 8, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12339143 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein there is no intersection between a projection area of the reflector on the base and respective disposing positions of the at least eight light sources on the base (claim 3).
Regarding claim 9, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12339143 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the elastomer support housing is of an integral structure, and is made of a silicone material (claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12339143 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the elastomer support housing comprises a rigid plate and a deformable support, the rigid plate is connected to the base through the deformable support, and the reflector is fixed to a lower surface of the rigid plate (claim 5).
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tar et al. (USPGPub 20140326882 A1) in view of Kiyose (USPGPub 20110243701 A1) and Shafer et al. (USPGPub 20170363464 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tar teaches a method for detecting a touch event using a tactile sensor (¶1, the invention relates to a sensor device adapted to sense pressure and force acting on its surface), wherein the tactile sensor includes a photo detector (22) disposed on a base (24) of the tactile sensor (see figures 1 and 16E, light detecting element 22 (i.e. photodetector) disposed on carrier element 24 (i.e. base)) and evenly disposed around the photo detector (22) on the base (24) (see figures 1 and 16E, light emitting elements 20 arranged evenly around photodetector 22 on base 24; and ¶79, FIG. 16E shows a similar arrangement to FIG. 16D, with the difference that in this embodiment four light emitting elements 20 surround the light detecting element 22 in an orderly manner), and a reflector (14) disposed above the photo detector (22) (see figure 1, light reflecting layer 14 (i.e. reflector) disposed above photodetector 22), the method comprising: acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector (22) for light generated by each of the light sources (20) and then reflected the reflector (14) separately (see figures 13 and 16E; and ¶71, in the resting status of the sensor device, practically equal quantity of light reaches each light detecting element 22 from the light emitting element 20. In the status subjected to force as shown in FIG. 13, this equilibrium is upset, and as a result of changing of light paths, depending on the magnitude and direction of force F, each light detecting element 22 is exposed to different quantity of light, i.e. the quantity of light differs from the status without force. When the sensor device is appropriately calibrated, a conclusion can be drawn from the light quantities measured by means of the light detecting elements 22 about the magnitude and direction of force F); and measuring at least one of magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor based on changes in the light intensity (¶71, in the resting status of the sensor device, practically equal quantity of light reaches each light detecting element 22 from the light emitting element 20. In the status subjected to force as shown in FIG. 13, this equilibrium is upset, and as a result of changing of light paths, depending on the magnitude and direction of force F, each light detecting element 22 is exposed to different quantity of light, i.e. the quantity of light differs from the status without force. When the sensor device is appropriately calibrated, a conclusion can be drawn from the light quantities measured by means of the light detecting elements 22 about the magnitude and direction of force F). However, Tar fails to explicitly teach wherein there are at least eight light sources; and wherein the force is measured in six degrees of freedom.
However, Kiyose teaches wherein there are at least eight light sources (12) (see figures 1 and 2, twelve light sources 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tar to incorporate the teachings of Kiyose to include at least eight light sources because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the force is measured in six degrees of freedom.
However, Shafer teaches wherein the force is measured in six degrees of freedom (¶51, when the movable structure is subjected to a force, the movable structure may translate in one or more spatial dimensions (e.g., along an x-, y-, and z-axis), and may also rotate in one or more angular dimensions (e.g., roll, pitch, and yaw); and ¶52, a sensing device may measure force and/or torque in six degrees of freedom (DOFs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tar and Kiyose to incorporate the teachings of Shafer to provide a sensing device that can sense both force and torque through six degrees of freedom in order to determine both translational and angular displacements.
Regarding claim 8, Tar as modified by Kiyose and Shafer teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein there is no intersection between a projection area of the reflector (Tar 14) on the base (Tar 24) and respective disposing positions of the at least eight light sources (Tar 20 | Kiyose 12) on the base (Tar 24) (Tar, see figures 8-13, light emitted for the light emitters 20 does not reflect back towards the emitter due to the shape of the case 12; and see ¶79 for a description on how the particular embodiment functions).
Regarding claim 10, Tar as modified by Kiyose teaches the elastomer support housing (Tar 12), the base (Tar 24), and the reflector (Tar 14) (Tar, see figure 1). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the elastomer support housing comprises a rigid plate and a deformable support, the rigid plate is connected to the base through the deformable support, and the reflector is fixed to a lower surface of the rigid plate.
However, Shafer teaches wherein the elastomer support housing comprises a rigid plate (410) and a deformable support (430), the rigid plate (410) is connected to the base (420) through the deformable support (430), and the reflector (412) is fixed to a lower surface of the rigid plate (410) (see figure 4A, housing comprising deformable springs 430 having a rigid movable structure 410 that supports reflector 412).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tar and Kiyose to incorporate the teachings of Shafer to include a rigid plate supporting the reflector in order to prevent the reflector from deforming and reflecting light away from the sensor.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tar et al. (USPGPub 20140326882 A1) in view of Kiyose (USPGPub 20110243701 A1) and Shafer et al. (USPGPub 20170363464 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicholas (USPGPub 20230302656 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tar as modified by Kiyose and Shafer teaches the method according to claim 1, the at least eight light sources (Kiyose, see figures 1 and 2); and wherein the measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in six degrees of freedom based on changes in the light intensity comprises: measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of translation of the touch event based on the changes in the light intensity measured by the photo detector (Tar 22 | Kiyose 30 | Shafer 424) and a first mapping relation (Tar, ¶71, as a result of changing of light paths, depending on the magnitude and direction of force F, each light detecting element 22 is exposed to different quantity of light, i.e. the quantity of light differs from the status without force. When the sensor device is appropriately calibrated, a conclusion can be drawn from the light quantities measured by means of the light detecting elements 22 about the magnitude and direction of force F); the first mapping relation indicating a correspondence between the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of translation and the changes in the light intensity (Shafer, see figure 11A; and ¶42, When a force is exerted against the movable structure, it may translate in one or more degrees of freedom, causing the curved reflector to displace from a rest position. This translation may change the illuminance distribution measured by the photodetectors. Based on this illuminance distribution (and/or change in illuminance distribution), the position of the curved reflector may be determined). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector comprises: acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the light sources in the tactile sensor.
However, Nicholas teaches wherein the acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector (Camera) comprises: acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector (Camera) by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the light sources (Light) in the tactile sensor (¶29, these lighting conditions are provided as a sequential series of illumination (e.g. blinking) provided from alternating lighting sources…the lights can be activated in an ON-OFF sequence which, in some forms, are coordinated with each other. To set forth just one non-limiting example, a first light can be activated to the ON condition while the second light is deactivated to the OFF condition, whereupon after an interval of time (which can be predetermined or determined as a result of system processing) the condition reversed with the first light deactivated to OFF while the second light is activated to ON. The above-described process can be repeated with the same or different interval. Such alternating can be sequences which results in a blinkering of lights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tar, Kiyose, and Shafer to incorporate the teachings of Nicholas to further provide a sequential turning off and on of the light sources so that multiple lighting conditions can be utilized to maximize the processable information and the camera can obtain distinguishing light information in both spectral and temporal channels (Nicholas, ¶29).
Regarding claim 5, Tar as modified by Kiyose and Shafer teaches the method according to claim 1, the at least eight light sources (Kiyose, see figures 1 and 2); and wherein the measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in six degrees of freedom based on changes in the light intensity comprises: measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of rotation of the touch event based on the changes in the light intensity measured by the photo detector (Tar 22 | Kiyose 30 | Shafer 424) and a second mapping relation (Tar, ¶71, as a result of changing of light paths, depending on the magnitude and direction of force F, each light detecting element 22 is exposed to different quantity of light, i.e. the quantity of light differs from the status without force. When the sensor device is appropriately calibrated, a conclusion can be drawn from the light quantities measured by means of the light detecting elements 22 about the magnitude and direction of force F; and Shafer, see figure 11B; and ¶51, However, if the movable structure rotates (e.g., rolls, pitches, and/or yaws), the relative position of each curved reflector with respect to its respective light emitter may be different for each curved reflector. Thus, angular displacements of the movable structure may produce different illuminance distributions for each cluster of photodetectors); the second mapping relation indicating a correspondence between the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of rotation and the changes in the light intensity (Shafer, ¶51, However, if the movable structure rotates (e.g., rolls, pitches, and/or yaws), the relative position of each curved reflector with respect to its respective light emitter may be different for each curved reflector. Thus, angular displacements of the movable structure may produce different illuminance distributions for each cluster of photodetectors). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector comprises: acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the light sources in the tactile sensor.
However, Nicholas teaches wherein the acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector (Camera) comprises: acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector (Camera) by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the light sources (Light) in the tactile sensor (¶29, these lighting conditions are provided as a sequential series of illumination (e.g. blinking) provided from alternating lighting sources…the lights can be activated in an ON-OFF sequence which, in some forms, are coordinated with each other. To set forth just one non-limiting example, a first light can be activated to the ON condition while the second light is deactivated to the OFF condition, whereupon after an interval of time (which can be predetermined or determined as a result of system processing) the condition reversed with the first light deactivated to OFF while the second light is activated to ON. The above-described process can be repeated with the same or different interval. Such alternating can be sequences which results in a blinkering of lights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tar, Kiyose, and Shafer to incorporate the teachings of Nicholas to further provide a sequential turning off and on of the light sources so that multiple lighting conditions can be utilized to maximize the processable information and the camera can obtain distinguishing light information in both spectral and temporal channels (Nicholas, ¶29).
Regarding claim 7, Tar as modified by Kiyose teaches the method according to claim 1, the at least eight light sources (Kiyose, see figures 1 and 2); and the measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in six degrees of freedom based on changes in the light intensity (Tar, ¶71, in the resting status of the sensor device, practically equal quantity of light reaches each light detecting element 22 from the light emitting element 20. In the status subjected to force as shown in FIG. 13, this equilibrium is upset, and as a result of changing of light paths, depending on the magnitude and direction of force F, each light detecting element 22 is exposed to different quantity of light, i.e. the quantity of light differs from the status without force. When the sensor device is appropriately calibrated, a conclusion can be drawn from the light quantities measured by means of the light detecting elements 22 about the magnitude and direction of force F). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector comprises: acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the light sources in the tactile sensor; and inputting the light intensity measured by the photo detector into a machine learning model to predict at least one of the magnitude and direction of the force exerted on the tactile sensor of the touch event.
However, Nicholas teaches wherein the acquiring light intensity measured by the photo detector (Camera) comprises: acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector (Camera) by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the light sources (Light) in the tactile sensor (¶29, these lighting conditions are provided as a sequential series of illumination (e.g. blinking) provided from alternating lighting sources…the lights can be activated in an ON-OFF sequence which, in some forms, are coordinated with each other. To set forth just one non-limiting example, a first light can be activated to the ON condition while the second light is deactivated to the OFF condition, whereupon after an interval of time (which can be predetermined or determined as a result of system processing) the condition reversed with the first light deactivated to OFF while the second light is activated to ON. The above-described process can be repeated with the same or different interval. Such alternating can be sequences which results in a blinkering of lights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tar and Kiyose to incorporate the teachings of Nicholas to further provide a sequential turning off and on of the light sources so that multiple lighting conditions can be utilized to maximize the processable information and the camera can obtain distinguishing light information in both spectral and temporal channels (Nicholas, ¶29). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach inputting the light intensity measured by the photo detector into a machine learning model to predict at least one of the magnitude and direction of the force exerted on the tactile sensor of the touch event.
However, Shafer teaches inputting the light intensity measured by the photo detector (424) into a machine learning model to predict at least one of the magnitude and direction of the force exerted on the tactile sensor of the touch event (¶49, statistical models, machine learning tools, neural networks, and other non-linear models may be used to model the relationship between illuminance values (e.g., based on photodetector voltages) and force or torque values in a force and torque sensor…The labeled illuminance values may be provided to a machine learning tool to develop a model of the force and torque sensor. Once determined, the model may be stored and used during the operation of the sensor to estimate the values of the force and/or torque applied against the sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tar, Kiyose, and Nicholas to incorporate the teachings of Shafer to further include a machine learning model (MLM) capable of predicting values because: MLMs adapt and improve over time by continuously learning, which enhances/improves the accuracy of predictions; MLMs are capable of processing large values of data that would overwhelm conventional methods; as well as many other well-known advantages.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tar et al. (USPGPub 20140326882 A1) in view of Kiyose (USPGPub 20110243701 A1) and Shafer et al. (USPGPub 20170363464 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsuhara et al. (USPGPub 20220397469 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tar as modified by Kiyose and Shafer teaches wherein the elastomer support housing (Tar 12) is of an integral structure (Tar, see figures 1A-1B, sensing unit 20/22, cover layer 12 (i.e. elastomer support housing), and carrier element 24 (i.e. base); and ¶74, Under impact of an external force, the shape of the flexible cover layer 12, i.e. the form of the outer dome, changes). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the elastomer support housing is made of a silicone material.
However, Katsuhara teaches wherein the elastomer support housing is made of a silicone material (¶36, the deformation layer 60 includes silicone; and ¶38, The light blocking section 70 includes, for example, silicone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tar, Kiyose, and Shafer to incorporate the teachings of Katsuhara to have the elastic member made from silicone because silicon is a flexible material that retains its flexibility in a large range of temperature environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claims 2 and 1 as claimed, wherein the base comprises an x-axis and a y-axis which intersect at an origin on the base and the at least eight light sources comprise two positive x-axis light sources, two negative x-axis light sources, two positive y-axis light sources and two negative y-axis light sources, wherein the two positive x-axis light sources are located on a positive half axis of the x-axis, the two negative x-axis light sources are located on a negative half axis of the x-axis, the two positive y-axis light sources are located on a positive half axis of the y-axis, and the two negative y-axis light sources are located on a negative half axis of the y-axis; the acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the at least eight light sources in the tactile sensor comprises: turning on the positive x-axis light sources, and acquiring the light intensity of the positive x-axis light sources measured by the photo detector; and turning on the negative x-axis light sources, and acquiring the light intensity of the negative x-axis light source measured by the photo detector; and more specifically in combination with the measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of translation of the touch event based on the changes in the light intensity measured by the photo detector and a first mapping relation comprises: acquiring the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of translation along the x-axis in the touch event according to a first difference value and the first mapping relation; the first difference value indicating a difference between the light intensity of the positive x-axis light sources measured by the photo detector and the light intensity of the negative x-axis light sources measured by the photo detector.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claims 2 and 1 as claimed, wherein the acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the at least eight light sources in the tactile sensor comprises: acquiring light intensity of a first target light source measured by the photo detector at moment i, and acquiring light intensity of the first target light source measured by the photo detector at moment i+1, the first target light source indicating at least one of the at least eight light sources; more specifically in combination with the measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of translation of the touch event based on the changes in the light intensity measured by the photo detector and a first mapping relation comprises: acquiring the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of translation in the touch event according to a third difference value and the first mapping relation; the third difference value indicating a difference between the light intensity of the first target light source measured by the photo detector at moment i and the light intensity of the first target light source measured by the photo detector at moment i+1.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claims 5 and 1 as claimed, wherein the base comprises an x-axis and a y-axis which intersect at an origin on the base and the at least eight light sources comprise two positive x-axis light sources, two negative x-axis light sources, two positive y-axis light sources and two negative y-axis light sources, wherein the two positive x-axis light sources are located on a positive half axis of the x-axis, the two negative x-axis tight sources are located on a negative half axis of the x-axis, the two positive y-axis light sources are located on a positive half axis of the y-axis, and the two negative y-axis light sources are located on a negative half axis of the y-axis; the acquiring the light intensity measured by the photo detector by sequentially turning on and then turning off each of the at least eight light sources in the tactile sensor comprises: turning on the first x-axis light source, and acquiring the light intensity of the first x-axis light source measured by the photo detector; and turning on the second x-axis light source, and acquiring the light intensity of the second x-axis light source measured by the photo detector; and more specifically in combination with the measuring at least one of the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of rotation of the touch event based on the changes in the light intensity measured by the photo detector and a second mapping relation comprises: acquiring the magnitude and direction of force exerted on the tactile sensor in a direction of rotation about the x-axis in the touch event according to a fourth difference value and the second mapping relation; the fourth difference value indicating a difference between the light intensity of the first x-axis light source measured by the photo detector and the light intensity of the second x-axis light source measured by the photo detector.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakanishi (USPGPub 20110128554 A1): Nakanishi teaches determining position or an object using x and y axis intensity differences (¶55, firstly in the X-coordinate detecting first period, the light emitting element 12A is put on while putting off the light emitting element 12B to thereby form an X-coordinate detecting first light intensity distribution L2Xa in which the intensity monotonically decrease in the X-axis direction from the one side X1 toward the other side X2 as shown in FIG. 4A. Further, in an X-coordinate detecting second period, the light emitting element 12B is put on while putting off the light emitting element 12A to thereby form the X-coordinate detecting second light intensity distribution L2Xb in which the intensity monotonically decreases in the X-axis direction from the other side X2 toward the one side X1; and see ¶56 for further details). However, Nakanishi does not teach the determination of force, and a method for position determination of an object would not make sense to combine Nakanishi with Tar in order to teach a force magnitude/direction determination.
Kato et al. (USPGPub 20210072101 A1): Kato teaches a tactile sensor having a light source (2), a light receiving section (3), a deformable, elastic dome (10), and a reflector (11) (see figure 2).
Alspach et al. (USPGPub 20210299886 A1): Alspach teaches a deformable sensor for the detection of force using a plurality of light emitters (134) surrounding a receiver (130) (see figure 1).
DeSalvo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10481262 B1): DeSalvo teaches a displacement sensor having a light emitter (415) and light sensors (420/425) that, depending on displacement, sense different intensities of light (see figure 4; and col. 8, lines 61-67, The controller determines a displacement of the haptic plate 410 based in part on light measured by the two optical detectors 420 and 425. For example, if the haptic plate 410 is displaced such that distances change between the haptic plate 410 and one or both of the optical detectors 420 and 425, the amount of light detected by one or more optical detector changes).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights