CONTROL OF SMA HAPTIC ASSEMBLY

§102 §112 §251

, DETAILED ACTION Status of Submission The preliminary amendment filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims Subject to Examination Amended patent claims 1-20 (claims 2, 3, 5, 7-18 and 20 being amended via dependency) are subject to examination. Objection to Amendment - Formalities The claim amendments filed on February 26, 2026 are objected to because the status identifier “(Pending)” should not be used for patent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-18 and 20. See 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2),(d) and (g). Rather, the status identifier “(Original)” should be used to signify that no changes have been made relative to patent claims in effect as of the date of filing of this reissue application. Claim Construction During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq. An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV. Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary. Reissue Oath/Declaration OBJECTION 1: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on February 26, 2026 is defective because it fails to identify an original patent claim that the instant broadening reissue application seeks to broaden. See 37 CFR 1.175(b) and MPEP 1414-1414.01. As required by 37 CFR 1.175(b), for an application that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. OBJECTION 2: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on February 26, 2026 is defective because it fails to properly and specifically identify at least one error which can be relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01. As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa. In the present case, the declaration’s error statement reads as follows: This is a broadening reissue application. At least one error is that the patent failed to include claims that are not limited to providing a haptic effect. All errors corrected in the reissue application up to the time of filing the declaration arose without deceptive intention. This statement fails to properly identify an error which can be relied upon to support this reissue application because: As explained below, broadening the claims by eliminating all recitations of “haptic” violates the original-patent requirement. No patent claim is identified and, thus, applicant has failed to properly identify where the error occurs in the patent. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251: (a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. GROUND 1: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. See the explanation above. GROUND 2: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for failing to comply with the original patent requirement. See MPEP 1412.01. As explained in MPEP 1412.01: The reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent, as required by 35 U.S.C. 251. The entire disclosure, not just the claim(s), is considered in determining what the patentee objectively intended as the invention. See In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613, 21 USPQ2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and In re Rowand, 526 F.2d 558, 187 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1975). The patentee’s “intent to claim” is analogous to the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). See In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). However, the original patent standard and the written description requirement are not the same. Where the written description requirement is based on what the skilled artisan would have understood was within the possession of the inventor, recent Federal Circuit case law indicates that the original patent requirement requires something more. A claim submitted in reissue may be rejected under the original patent clause of 35 USC 251 if the original specification demonstrates, to one skilled in the art, an absence of disclosure sufficient to indicate that a patentee could have claimed the subject matter. The essential inquiry is whether one skilled in the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the patentee. See In re Amos. The original patent requirement is not satisfied when the patent only discloses one invention (e.g., a particular class of jet injectors), as evidenced by the clearly repetitive use of a descriptive term or classifier (e.g., jet injector) throughout the specification, but the reissue claims recite a broader/different invention (e.g., a generic injector encompassing a non-jet injector). See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Where a new invention is sought by reissue, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention. See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, claims drawn to an invention comprising a newly claimed combination of features, which were only disclosed in the original patent as suggested alternatives (and not as a single combination), or which were only disclosed as part of the original invention and not as an invention separate from the original invention, would not satisfy the original patent requirement. See Antares Pharma Inc. When the written description and drawings fail to disclose that a feature required by the patent claims is an optional feature of the invention, omission of such feature from the reissue claims fails to satisfy the original patent requirement. See Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1352, 2019 USPQ2d 221227 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In this case, the original disclosure: States repeatedly that the invention relates to shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators used in haptic assemblies, and SMA actuators used to provide haptic functionality for tactile feedback. See, for example, the abstract and col. 1, ll. 13-27. States that the invention provides a method of driving a SMA haptic assembly comprising an actuator comprising SMA that is arranged on actuation to provide a haptic effect. See col. 1, l. 59 to col. 2, l. 2. States that a second aspect of the invention provides a SMA haptic assembly comprising an actuator comprising SMA that is arranged on actuation to provide a haptic effect. See col. 4, ll. 64-67; col. 6, ll. 42-46. States that the invention (i.e., the inventive method of driving a SMA haptic assembly) is intended to be used in a SMA alloy haptic assembly comprising an actuator comprising SMA that is arranged on actuation to provide a haptic effect. See col. 5, ll. 18-33. Explains that (i) the desired haptic effect places constraints on how the SMA is heated, (ii) the invention divides heating of the SMA into a pre-heating period and an actuation period to all for greater flexibility in how power is supplied to the SMA, and (iii) relies on the pre-heating period and actuation period to enable the SMA to be fully transformed in the desired period such that the haptic effect is properly provided. See col. 2, ll. 3-18 and 41-61; col. 5, l. 52 to col. 7, l. 17. During the prosecution of Application No. 17/798,928 (which later issued as US Patent No. 11,913,436 B2), applicant only presented claims to (i) a method of driving a shape memory alloy haptic assembly to provide a haptic effect, and (ii) a shape memory alloy haptic assembly that provides a haptic effect. However, amended claims 1-20 of this application recite broader/different inventions, i.e., (i) a method of driving a generic shape memory alloy assembly to provide a generic actuation effect, and (ii) a generic shape memory alloy assembly that provides a generic actuation effect. As a result, amended claims 1-20 fail to comply with the original patent requirement. 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. GROUND 3: Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results. Claim 19 recites “a drive circuit arranged to supply drive current to the actuator successively during a pre-heating period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised without causing the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect and during an actuation period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised so as to cause the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect” (ll. 4-7). Applicant’s specification makes general reference to a drive circuit but fails to provide a written description (i.e., a detailed explanation) of the manner in which the drive circuit is “arranged to” supply drive current to the actuator successively during a pre-heating period and during an actuation period. That is, the specification lacks a specific description of both the structure and the operation of the claimed drive circuit. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how an embodiment, as defined by claim 19, would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. GROUND 4: Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire scope of the claimed invention. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed; all that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the level of knowledge and skill in the art. With respect to the breadth of a claim, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. See MPEP 2164.08. Claim 1 recites a generic method step of “supplying drive current to the actuator successively during a pre-heating period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised without causing the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect and during an actuation period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised so as to cause the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect” (ll. 3-6). According to the specification, the drive circuit 201 is arranged to control the supply of drive current during the pre-heating period and the actuation period. However, claims 1-18 and 20 do not recite a drive circuit and do not limit the claimed method to supplying the drive current during the pre-heating period and the actuation period via a drive circuit. Instead, claims 1-18 and 20 encompass any and all possible ways2 of supplying the drive current during the pre-heating period and the actuation period. In contrast, the specification is, at best, only enabling for supplying the drive current during the pre-heating period and the actuation period via a drive circuit. Thus, the specification is not enabling for the entire scope of the generic method of supplying drive current recited in claims 1-18 and 20. 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. GROUND 5: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As explained above, claim 1 recites a generic method step of “supplying drive current to the actuator successively during a pre-heating period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised without causing the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect and during an actuation period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised so as to cause the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect” (ll. 3-6). Since claims 1-18 and 20 do not recite a drive circuit and do not limit the claimed method to supplying the drive current during the pre-heating period and the actuation period via a drive circuit, these claims encompass any and all possible ways of supplying the drive current during the pre-heating period and the actuation period. Such broad claim scope far exceeds the scope of applicant’s disclosure such that it is impossible to determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what subject matter is encompassed by the claims and what subject matter is excluded thereby. Claims 1 and 19 recite “an actuator comprising shape memory alloy that is arranged on actuation to provide [a haptic] an actuation effect” (claim 1, ll. 1-2; claim 19, ll. 2-3). The recited “shape memory alloy” specifies a substance, not a structural element. As a result, these claims are indefinite/incomplete for failing to specify the structure of the claimed actuator that comprises (is made of) a shape memory alloy substance. In claim 3, the term “a transition temperature” (l. 4) is indefinite because it is unclear how the transition temperature introduced in line 4 of claim 3 relates to the transition temperature previously introduced in line 2 of claim 3. Are these the same transition temperature, or are they different transition temperatures? The claim would be indefinite if amended at line 4 to read “the transition temperature”. In claim 16, the term “the ambient temperature” (ll. 1-2) lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, the claim fails to define what is meant by “ambient”. Does this refer to the ambient temperature of the actuator, or to the ambient temperature of some other structure? Claim 17 is indefinite due to the repeated use of the alternative expressions “and/or” (ll. 2, 3 and 4) and “or” (l. 3). With so many possible combinations encompassed by these alternative expressions, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty. As explained above, claim 19 recites “a drive circuit arranged to supply drive current to the actuator successively during a pre-heating period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised without causing the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect and during an actuation period in which the temperature of the shape memory alloy is raised so as to cause the shape memory alloy to provide the actuation [haptic] effect” (ll. 4-7). Since applicant’s specification fails to explain how the claimed drive circuit is “arranged to” supply drive current to the actuator successively during a pre-heating period and during an actuation period, applicant’s claim scope cannot be ascertained in a manner consistent with the specification. That is, absent any specific explanation of the manner in which the claimed invention is structured and function in the specification, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty. Listing of Prior Art The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically): “Butera et al.” US Publication No. 2003/0173863 A1 “Ikuta et al.” US Publication No. 2017/0293359 A1 “Kosaka et al.” US Publication No. 2001/0026687 A1 “Uchida et al.” US Publication No. 2012/0212442 A1 “Zanella et al.” US Publication No. 2005/0275196 A1 AIA – First to File The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. GROUND 6: Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zanella et al. With respect to claims 1 and 19, Zanella et al. discloses a shape memory alloy (SMA) assembly comprising an actuator 1 comprising SMA that is arranged on actuation to provide an actuation effect. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0001, 0016. The SMA assembly further includes a drive circuit in the form of a central control unit 3 (e.g., electronic control unit 5) that produces current pulses 7 for driving the SMA actuator 1 and that controls the intensity and/or duration of the current pulses 7 based on input signals 4, 8 received from sensors (e.g., sensor 6) that detect the temperature of the environment (i.e., ambient temperature), the temperature of the SMA, and the available electrical supply voltage. See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0016-0018, 0033-0037, 0042-0045. Zanella et al. further teaches a method of driving the SMA actuator 1 that comprises supplying drive current (see plot B in Fig. 5), via the current pulses 7 produced by the drive circuit, to the actuator 1 during an actuation period in which the temperature of the SMA is raised so as to cause the SMA to provide the actuation effect (see plot A in Fig. 5). See Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0016, 0021-0022. In addition, Zanella et al. teaches that supplying drive current during the actuation period is preceded by supplying drive current during a pre-heating period in which the temperature of the SMA is raised without causing the SMA to provide the actuation effect. See ¶¶ 0005, 0032, 0039-0041, 0070. The current pulses 7 can be of different types including (i) timed pulses kept for a given time and interrupted, (ii) constant voltage pulses corresponding to maximum battery voltage, (iii) pulses with a voltage corresponding to a fraction of the maximum battery voltage obtained with PWM (pulse width modulation) with constant direct current, (iv) variable voltage pulses of PWM direct current, and (v) pre-actuation pulses for the pre-heating period. See ¶¶ 0021-0022, 0026-0032. In order to control the intensity and/or duration of the current pulses 7, the electric supply voltage to the SMA actuator 1 can be changed depending upon its operating conditions. See ¶ 0006. More specifically, the supply voltage can be modulated (thereby controlling the current supplied to the actuator) to optimize the heating of the SMA actuator 1 based on its operating conditions, with low direct current (under the actuation threshold) supplied during the pre-heating period. See ¶¶ 0042-0045, 0064-0071. Since power is directly proportional to voltage and current (P = V × I), the use of a lower voltage/current during the pre-heating period means that the drive current has a lower time-averaged power during the pre-heating period than during the actuation period. This is confirmed by the teaching in ¶ 0040 (see also claim 4) that pre-heating pulses can be provided through a PWM with suitably set duty cycle so as to supply an insufficient power for the actuation of the controlled member (i.e., the member controlled by the SMA actuator 1), but such as to bring the SMA element to temperatures suitable for a subsequent actuation in a relatively short time. With respect to claims 2 and 20, Zanella et al.’s drive current has a lower time-averaged power during the entire pre-heating period than during the actuation period. With respect to claim 3, during the pre-heating period, the temperature of the SMA is raised to a temperature close to the transition temperature, and, during the actuation period, the temperature of the SMA is raised to a temperature above the transition temperature. See ¶¶ 0021-0022, 0032, 0040-0041, 0070. With respect to claim 4, the pre-heating period is commenced in response to a demand signal for an actuation effect. See ¶¶ 0040-0041. The claimed “demand signal” is so broad as to encompass any signal that serves to indicate a demand for pre-heating. With respect to claims 6 and 7, the pre-heating period is commenced in response to a precursor event (in advance of a demand signal for an actuation effect), and the actuation period is commenced in response to the demand signal. See ¶¶ 0040-0041. With respect to claims 9 and 10, the drive current is supplied to the actuator during the pre-heating period and the actuation period from the same current source that is pulse width modulated by modulations having a different profile in the pre-heating period and the actuation period, or from the same current source with different voltages in the pre-heating period and the actuation period. See explanation above. With respect to claims 13 and 14, Zanella et al. discloses that the temperature of the SMA can be determined by detecting a measure of resistance of the actuator. See ¶¶ 0007, 0017, 0033, 0035, 0055, 0057. As explained above, the drive current is controlled during the pre-heating period based on the temperature of the SMA (and, thus, the detected measure of resistance), with the length (i.e., duty cycle) and the power of the drive current controlled during the pre-heating period. See ¶¶ 0016-0017, 0040. With respect to claims 16 and 17, the length and/or power of the drive current during the pre-heating period and/or the actuation period is controlled based on the sensed ambient temperature. See explanation above GROUND 7: Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kosaka et al. With respect to claims 1 and 19, Kosaka et al. discloses a shape memory alloy (SMA) assembly comprising an actuator comprising a SMA wire 4 that is arranged on actuation to provide an actuation effect. See Figs. 1A-1B; ¶¶ 0003-0005, 0033-0034. The SMA assembly further includes a drive circuit (see Figs. 1A-1B) that produces supply current (shown as pulses in Fig. 6) for driving the SMA wire 4 and that controls the level and duration of the current pulses based on the open/close state of switches S1, S2. See Figs. 1A-4; ¶¶ 0004, 0009-0010, 0034-0037, 0053. Kosaka et al. further teaches a method of driving the SMA wire 4 that comprises supplying drive current (see the supply current plot in Fig. 6), via the drive circuit, to the SMA wire 4 successively during a pre-heating period (see the portion of the supply current plot in Fig. 6 between S1 ON and S2 ON) in which the temperature of the SMA is raised without causing the SMA to provide the actuation effect and during an actuation period (see the portion of the supply current plot in Fig. 6 between S2 ON and exposure end) in which the temperature of the SMA is raised so as to cause the SMA to provide the actuation effect. See Figs. 2-6; ¶¶ 0005-0010, 0012, 0035-0040. The supply current is less than 80 mA during the pre-heating period and greater than 80 mA during the actuation period. See Fig. 6; ¶ 0037. Further, the applied voltage is increased (from a lower voltage during the pre-heating period) to a higher voltage during the actuation period. See ¶ 0010 (with ¶ 0006). Since power is directly proportional to voltage and current (P = V × I), the use of a lower voltage/current during the pre-heating period and a higher voltage/ current during the actuation period means that the drive current has a lower time-averaged power during the pre-heating period than during the actuation period. With respect to claims 2 and 20, Kosaka et al.’s drive current has a lower time-averaged power during the entire pre-heating period than during the actuation period. With respect to claim 3, during the pre-heating period, the temperature of the SMA is raised to the transition temperature or to a temperature close to the transition temperature, and, during the actuation period, the temperature of the SMA is raised to a temperature above the transition temperature. See ¶¶ 0005, 0009-0010, 0037-0039. With respect to claim 4, the pre-heating period is commenced in response to a demand signal (i.e., a signal produced by closing the switch S1) for an actuation effect. See explanation above. With respect to claims 6 and 7, the pre-heating period is commenced in response to a precursor event (i.e., closing the switch S1), and the actuation period is commenced in response to a demand signal (i.e., a signal produced by closing the switch S2). See explanation above. With respect to claims 9 and 10, the drive current is supplied to the actuator during the pre-heating period and the actuation period from the same current source with different voltages in the pre-heating period and the actuation period. See explanation above. GROUND 8: Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida et al. With respect to claims 1 and 19, Uchida et al. discloses a shape memory alloy (SMA) haptic assembly 1 comprising an actuator 2 comprising a SMA wire 21 that is arranged on actuation to provide a haptic effect. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0048-0049, 0051, 0054, 0056. The SMA assembly further includes a drive circuit that includes a control unit 6, a signal generator 31 and a SMA driver 32, which cooperate to produce voltage pulses (see Fig. 4) for driving the SMA wire 21 and to control the level and/or duration of the voltage pulses based on sensed conditions. See Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶ 0048-0050, 0053-0054, 0057. Applying the voltage pulses (see Fig. 4) to the SMA wire 21 supplies drive current to the SMA wire 21 in a conventional manner. See the description of electric current applied to the SMA wire 21 in ¶ 0077. Uchida et al. further teaches a method of driving the SMA wire 21 that comprises supplying drive current (see the plots in Fig. 4), via the drive circuit, to the SMA wire 21 successively during a pre-heating period (see the plot in Fig, 4(B)) in which the temperature of the SMA is raised without causing the SMA to provide the actuation effect and during an actuation period (see the plot in Fig. 4(A)) in which the temperature of the SMA is raised so as to cause the SMA to provide the actuation effect. See Figs. 4(A) to 4(E); ¶¶ 0061-0066. Fig. 4(A) shows a supply voltage of 1 V during the actuation period, Fig. 4(C) shows supply voltages of 0.5V, 0.7V, 1.0V, 1.2 V and 1.5 V during the actuation period, and Fig. 4(B) shows a supply voltage of 0.3 V during the pre-heating period. See ¶¶ 0062-0064. For the reasons explained above, the use of different voltage levels in the pre-heating and actuation periods produces different drive currents in the pre-heating and actuation periods. Since power is directly proportional to voltage and current (P = V × I), the use of a lower voltage/current during the pre-heating period and a higher voltage/current during the actuation period means that the drive current has a lower time-averaged power during the pre-heating period than during the actuation period. With respect to claims 2 and 20, Uchida et al.’s drive current has a lower time-averaged power during the entire pre-heating period than during the actuation period. With respect to claim 3, during the pre-heating period, the temperature of the SMA is raised to the transition temperature or a temperature close to the transition temperature, and, during the actuation period, the temperature of the SMA is raised to a temperature above the transition temperature. See Fig. 3; ¶ 0061. With respect to claim 4, the pre-heating period is commenced (followed by the actuation period) in response to a demand signal for an actuation effect, with the demand signal produced by a user putting his hand or fingertip on the SMA wire 21. See Fig. 2(A); ¶¶ 0053, 0059. In an embodiment having a touch panel 51, the pre-heating period is commenced (followed by the actuation period) in response to a demand signal for an actuation effect, with the demand signal produced by a touch switch 52. See Fig. 10; ¶ 0078. With respect to claim 5, the pre-heating period has a length of 20 ms to 2,000 ms. See Figs. 4(A) and 4(B); ¶¶ 0062-0063. Since the disclosed range (20-200 ms) includes values below 80 ms, Uchida et al. teaches the claimed length. With respect to claims 9 and 10, the drive current is supplied to the actuator during the pre-heating period and the actuation period from the same current source with different voltages in the pre-heating period and the actuation period. See explanation above. With respect to claim 18, the actuation period has a length of 1 ms to 100 ms. See Fig. 4(A); ¶ 0062. Since the disclosed range (1-100 ms) includes values below 10 ms, Uchida et al. teaches the claimed length. Pertinent Prior Art The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Butera et al. teaches (i) pre-heating a SMA actuator, (ii) controlling the electric power supply to the SMA actuator based on sensed ambient temperature, and (iii) measuring resistance of the SMA actuator to diagnose a failure state. Ikuta et al. teaches (i) a SMA actuator that is structured in a similar fashion to that disclosed by applicant, and (ii) controlling the width of the energization pulse based on sensed ambient temperature. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters (i.e., 18) not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. In Fig. 5, within black box S15, it appears that the text “Measure T” should read “Measure R/T”. See col. 15, ll. 53-58 along with black box S11 in Fig. 5. The objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Response Period A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Amendments in Reissue Applications Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g). Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale Disclosure Obligations Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Filing and Contact Information All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed: By Patent Center3: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ By Mail4 to: Commissioner for Patents United States Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 By FAX to: (571) 273-8300 By hand: Customer Service Window Knox Building 501 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928 /PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 Conferees: /MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 /EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993 1 Fig. 6 also shows a generic black box labeled generically as “Control”, but the specification fails to explain what is represented by this black box. 2 For example, the claims encompass the practice of the claimed step of supplying drive current by a human agent (i.e., manual control), but the specification does not provide enablement for such an implementation. 3 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). 4 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.