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 1 is pending in the instant application. Claims 2-20 are canceled.
Election/Restrictions
A preliminary amendment was filed on 10/05/2025. The preliminary amendment is not showing under the claim folder, however is placed on the file wrapper. The restriction requirement dated 02/25/2026 is hereby withdrawn due to the preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 10/06/2025 fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The information disclosure statements filed 10/06/2025 fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“importing a texture image having macro texture features Mi and micro texture features mi by an offline component”, in claim1;
“extracting, by the offline component, Mi and mi from the texture image and applying haptic mapping to sensation si…” in claim 1;
“detecting, by a mid-air tracking system, collision points between a moving human hand and a virtual object xi” in claim 1;
“calculating, by the mid-air tracking system, the center of mass of the collision points…” in claim 1; and
“establishing, by the mid-air tracking system, projecting H[si] to X depending in part on the offline component output” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
mid-air tracking system = Leap Motion Controller (para. [0036], para. [0108]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, recites “the center of mass”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “a center of mass”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 includes limitations that uses a generic place holder that is couple with functional language. Such limitations are: “importing a texture image having macro texture features Mi and micro texture features mi by an offline component” and “extracting, by the offline component, Mi and mi from the texture image and applying haptic mapping to sensation si…”. There is insufficient description of those specific structures and how the functions are performed or the results are achieved for the above functional language limitations. The specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. Thus, the specification lacked the “full, clear, concise, and exact written description” which is necessary to support the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “H[si] = f(si, mi, Mi)” and “X=µ(xi)”. The claim references a mathematical formula or equation without defining its variables, parameters and scope in the disclosure. The specification must describe the invention in full, clear, concise, and exact terms so that a person skilled in the art can make and use the invention. Therefore claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 4-5, recites “applying haptic mapping to sensation si where H[si] = f(si, mi, Mi) to generate an offline component output”. It is unclear what the claim refers to H[si] and f(si, mi, Mi). The claim limitation recites symbols, variables or formulas without explaining what they represent. In addition, it is unclear what the “sensation si” is referring to. It is also unclear what is being generated as the “offline component output”.
Claim 1, lines 9-10, recites “calculating, by the mid-air tracking system, the center of mass of the collision points X=µ(xi)”. It is unclear what the claim refers to µ(xi). The claim limitation recites symbols, variables or formulas without explaining what they represent.
Claim 1, lines 11-12, recites “establishing, by the mid-air tracking system, projecting H[si] to X depending in part on the offline component output”. It is unclear to what step is being perform by the mid-air tracking system. Is the mid-air tracking system establishing a “projection”? Is the mid-air tracking system projecting something? What is being projected? If the mid-air tracking system (Leap Motion controller) is performing a projecting function, the limitation creates doubt to how a tracking system such as Leap Motion controller can perform the projection. Moreover, if the “projection” is depending in part on the “offline component output”, then it depends on an additional parameter that is unknown, rendering the claim indefinite. In addition, the claim limitation recites symbols, variables or formulas without explaining what they represent.
Claim 1 recites limitations, “importing a texture image having macro texture features Mi and micro texture features mi by an offline component” and “extracting, by the offline component, Mi and mi from the texture image and applying haptic mapping to sensation si…”, that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11550395 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are fully addressed (located within) the claims of issued Patent 11550395 B2. This is an anticipatory obviousness type double patenting rejection.
Current Application No. 19260211
U.S. Patent No. 11550395 B2
Regarding claim 1. A method for generating mid-air haptic textures comprising:
importing a texture image having macro texture features Mi and micro texture features mi by an offline component;
extracting, by the offline component, Mi and mi from the texture image and
applying haptic mapping to sensation si where H[si] = f(si, mi, Mi) to generate an offline component output; on a iterative basis:
a) detecting, by a mid-air tracking system, collision points between a moving human hand and a virtual object xi;
b) calculating, by the mid-air tracking system, the center of mass of the collision points X=µ(xi);
c) establishing, by the mid-air tracking system, projecting H[si] to X depending in part on the offline component output.
Claim 1. A method for generating mid-air haptic textures comprising:
importing a texture image having macro texture features Mi and micro texture features mi by an offline component;
extracting, by the offline component, Mi and mi from the texture image and
applying haptic mapping to sensation si where H[si]=f(si, mi, Mi) to generate an offline component output; on a iterative basis:
a) detecting, by a mid-air tracking system, collision points between a moving human hand and a virtual object xi;
b) calculating, by the mid-air tracking system, the center of mass of the collision points X=μ(xi);
c) establishing, by the mid-air tracking system, projecting H[si] to X depending in part on the offline component output;
wherein extracting Mi and mi from the texture image uses a displacement map and avoids possible sensory conflicts due to inconsistency between the mid-air haptic texture and its visual representation.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchon et al. (US 10168782 B1, hereinafter referenced as Tchon) in view of Iodice et al. (US 20190196578 A1, hereinafter referenced as Iodice).
Regarding claim 1, Tchon teaches a method for generating mid-air haptic textures (Fig. 8, col. 4 lines 41-51, col 20 lines 36-67. Embodiments of the inventive concepts disclosed herein are directed to a method, system, and at least one device. A display may be implemented with and/or augmented with a haptic feedback system configured to form a dynamic ultrasonic acoustic field relative to the display surface. The dynamic ultrasonic acoustic field may include distinct pressure pattern regions that result in distinct tactile sensations by a user. For example, the haptic feedback system permits a user to feel pressure patterns of the ultrasonic acoustic field as three-dimensional gesture feedback. The HDD 226 may include the haptic feedback system 240 and may be implemented with ultrasonic transducers 242 beneath a screen of the HDD 226. As shown, the HDD 226 is configured to present an image 804 of terrain and a three-dimensional ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain. The ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may be formed as three-dimensional surface in a spatial region in front of the display area of the HDD 226. Peaks and valleys of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may correspond to peaks and valleys, respectively, of the image 804 of the terrain) comprising:
importing a texture image having macro texture features Mi and micro texture features mi by an offline component (see Fig. 8, col. 16, lines 6-21, col. 17 lines 23-35, col 20 lines 36-67. The processing and video generation system computing device 112-2 may be configured to receive data from any of various onboard or off-board devices. For example, the processing and video generation system computing device 112-2 may be configured to receive FMS data (e.g., the aircraft sensor data, data associated with at least one determined aircraft state, the flight plan data, the map data, and/or flight path data). Peaks and valleys of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may correspond to peaks and valleys, respectively, of the image 804 of the terrain. Peaks of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 may be located further away from a display surface of the HDD 226 than valleys of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802. The processor 114-2 of the processing and video generation system computing device 112-2 may be configured to receive map data from the FMS computing device 112-1. Based at least in part on the received map data, the processor 114-2 of the processing and video generation system computing device 112-2 may be configured to generate graphical data corresponding to the image 804 of terrain to output to the HDD 226 and may be configured to generate haptic feedback data corresponding to the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain to output to the haptic feedback system 240 of the HDD 226);
extracting, by the offline component, Mi and mi from the texture image and applying haptic mapping to sensation si where H[si] = f(si, mi, Mi) to generate an offline component output (see Fig. 8, col. 16, lines 6-25, col. 20 lines 37-67. The FMS computing device 112-1 may be configured to receive aircraft sensor data (e.g., data associated with aircraft location and orientation, attitude, and/or airspeed data) from one or more of the aircraft sensors 122, access flight plan data (e.g., data associated with a flight plan and which may include data corresponding to waypoints of a flight plan) maintained within the memory 116-1, access map data (e.g., flight map data), and output FMS data based thereon to one or more of the input/output devices 124 (e.g., the HDD 226 and/or the haptic feedback system 240), the communication system 104, and/or the processing and video generation system 112-2. For example, the FMS data may include the aircraft sensor data, data associated with at least one determined aircraft state, the flight plan data, the map data, and flight path data. The HDD 226 is configured to present an image 804 of terrain and a three-dimensional ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain. Peaks and valleys of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may correspond to peaks and valleys, respectively, of the image 804 of the terrain); on a iterative basis:
a) detecting, by a mid-air tracking system, collision points between a moving human hand and a virtual object xi (see Fig. 8, col. 10 lines 49-67, col. 20 lines 37-56, col. 21 lines 10-21. The gesture recognition system 228 may be configured to detect gestures (e.g., hand gestures) as user inputs. The gesture recognition system 228 may be configured for detecting hand gestures of users in real time. The gesture recognition system 228 may include at least one sensor 230, at least one processor 232, a memory 234, and a storage 236, as well as other components, equipment, and/or devices commonly included in an gesture recognition system. As shown, the HDD 226 is configured to present an image 804 of terrain and a three-dimensional ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain. The ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may be formed as three-dimensional surface in a spatial region in front of the display area of the HDD 226. Peaks and valleys of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may correspond to peaks and valleys, respectively, of the image 804 of the terrain. Peaks of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 may be located further away from a display surface of the HDD 226 than valleys of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802. The ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 allows the pilot to feel the topology of the terrain as tactile sensations caused by pressure patterns formed by the ultrasonic transducers 242. The gesture recognition system 228 is configured to detect user gestures as user inputs to interact with the ultrasonic acoustic field representation of the terrain. For example, the gesture recognition system 228 may be configured to detect a user's selection of a point in the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain. In some embodiments, the gesture recognition system 228 is configured to detect user gestures as user inputs to manipulate (e.g., pan, rotate, zoom in, and/or zoom out) the image 804 of terrain and/or the ultrasonic acoustic field representation of the terrain);
c) establishing, by the mid-air tracking system, projecting H[si] depending in part on the offline component output (see col. 20 lines 37-67, col. 21 lines 1-21. As shown, the HDD 226 is configured to present an image 804 of terrain and a three-dimensional ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain. The ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may be formed as three-dimensional surface in a spatial region in front of the display area of the HDD 226. Peaks and valleys of the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain may correspond to peaks and valleys, respectively, of the image 804 of the terrain. The ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 allows the pilot to feel the topology of the terrain as tactile sensations caused by pressure patterns formed by the ultrasonic transducers 242. Based at least in part on the received map data, the processor 114-2 of the processing and video generation system computing device 112-2 may be configured to generate graphical data corresponding to the image 804 of terrain to output to the HDD 226 and may be configured to generate haptic feedback data corresponding to the ultrasonic acoustic field representation 802 of the terrain to output to the haptic feedback system 240 of the HDD 226).
Tchon does not explicitly disclose the mid-air tracking system includes a Leap Motion controller; calculating, by the mid-air tracking system, the center of mass of the collision points X=µ(xi); and projecting H[si] to X
However, Iodice teaches the mid-air tracking system includes a Leap Motion controller (see Fig. 8, para. [0148]-[0149]. Off-the-shelf systems like “Leap Motion”) calculating, by the mid-air tracking system, the center of mass of the collision points X=µ(xi) (see para. [0163], para. [0177], para. [0241]. Active triangulation consists in a structured light emitter and an optical system. To apply triangulation, the light emitter should be well differentiated from other objects and ambient light. This is achieved by projecting different coding schemes onto the 3D scene, typically colored, temporal (lines), spatial (random texture) and modulated schemes. These techniques yield the estimation of the range of the center of mass of the target (i.e. the palm of the bare hand) with respect to the array of transducer, and possibly its location in the spatially perpendicular degrees of freedom. In haptic feedback systems, triangulation can be used to get the coordinates (x, y, z) of the virtual source in air (or of its center of mass). Its position lies in the intersections of the surfaces of three (or more) spheres); and projecting H[si] to X (see para. [0153], para. [0215]. The center of mass of the hand is known, so the haptic feedback can be projected effectively in a way)
Tchon and Iodice are related to mid-air tracking systems and haptic feedback systems, thus one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the obviousness of modifying Tchon method with Iodice teachings, since the haptic feedback can be projected effectively (Iodice, para. [0215]). In addition, it would have aided in improving accuracy and precision in applying haptic feedback to the user’s hand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Subramanian et al. (US 20150192995 A1) - A method for generating mid-air haptic textures (see abstract, para. [0053]. A method and apparatus for the creation of an acoustic field for providing tactile sensations. The method and system for providing tactile sensations can be used with interactive displays, where mid-air gestures allow a user to interact with the display) comprising: a) detecting, by a mid-air tracking system, collision points between a moving human hand and a virtual object xi (see Fig. 1, hand tracker20, para. [0030]-[0031]. The projector 16 is arranged to project visual information onto the screen 14 from above the screen 14 as shown. A user interacts with this visual information and the movement and position of the user's hand 26 is tracked by the hand tracker 20. In this particular embodiment, the hand tracker 20 is a Leap Motion controller arranged to provide the 3D coordinates of the user's fingertips and palm at up to 200 frames per second).
Rhee et al. (US 20180349690 A1) - A controller that models a virtual object and a sensed user's hand, and performs collision detection, thereby detecting whether there is a collision between the user's hand and the virtual object. The controller outputs a feedback signal only to a specific part of the user's hand in contact with the virtual object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVELISSE MARTINEZ QUILES whose telephone number is (571)270-7618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/IM/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 7/13/26
Prosecution Insights