Ex Parte Hamam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

14697680 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/697,680 04/28/2015
34300 7590 07/31/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton/Immersion
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Abdelwahab Hamam
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IMM559 (51851/925508) 8714
EXAMINER
WANG,JACKK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
kts _imm_ docketing@kilpatricktownsend.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABDELW AHAB HAMAM,
JUAN MANUEL CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, LIWEN WU,
JAMAL SABOUNE, VINCENT LEVESQUE, ROBERT LACROIX, and
DANNY GRANT
Appeal 2018-002112
Application 14/697 ,680
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-22, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal 2018-002112
Application 14/697,680
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a mobile electronic device for
"determin[ing] that the user is likely to walk into one or more objects" and
"output[ting] an alert ... [that] may comprise one or more of a graphical
alert ( e.g., a visible warning on the display), an audible alert ( e.g., an audible
alarm), or a tactile alert ( e.g., a vibration, deformation, surface feature, or
some other haptic effect)." (Spec. ,r 22.)
Claim 1 is reproduced below, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for tactile guidance comprising:
receiving a sensor signal from a sensor configured to
determine one or more objects associated with an area;
determining area information based in part on the sensor
signal;
determining an alert based in part on the area
information;
determining a haptic effect based in part on the alert;
determining a visual effect based in part on the alert;
outputting the visual effect on a display; and
transmitting a haptic signal associated with the haptic
effect to a haptic output device configured to output the haptic
effect.
EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated
by Slamka (US 2012/0053826 Al; Mar. 1, 2012).
2
Appeal 2018-002112
Application 14/697,680
ANALYSIS
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 18) that
Slamka does not disclose the limitation "determining an alert based in part
on the area information."
The Examiner found that Figure 2 of Slamka, which illustrates
sunglasses 100 with sensor array 104, corresponds to the limitation
"determining an alert based in part on the area information." (Final Act. 2
(citing ,r,r 39, 40 (describing the operation of the embodiment shown in
Figure 2)); see also Ans. 2-3.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Slamka relates to "electronic navigation systems for the visually-
impaired." (i-f 2.) Figure 2 of Slamka illustrates a head-mounted
embodiment for assisted guidance navigation (i1i1 13-14 ), which includes
sunglasses 100 with sensor array 104 (i-f 27). Slamka explains that "sensor
array 104 comprises ultrasonic transducers to transmit and receive ultrasonic
pulses for detecting objects" and "includes one or more sensors ... in
conjunction with a controller perform ultrasonic ranging to precisely track
objects within the vicinity of the user 106." (i-f 27.) Moreover, "the user [is
provided] with audible notification and feedback to guide and direct the user
within the user's environment." (i-f 28.) Because Slamka explains that
sensor array 104 tracks objects in the vicinity of user 106 and provides
feedback to guide user 106, Slamka discloses the limitation "determining an
alert based in part on the area information."
Appellants argue that "examples of elements recited by claim 1 for
which the Office Action [provides] no citation to the cited reference" include
the limitation "determining an alert based in part on the area information."
(App. Br. 18.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner cited to
3
Appeal 2018-002112
Application 14/697,680
paragraphs 27-28 of Slamka. (Final Act. 2.) Other than providing a
conclusory statement that "the Office Action includes no citation,"
Appellants have not provided any arguments or evidence as to why the
Examiner's findings with respect to Slamka are improper.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Slamka describes the
limitation "determining an alert based in part on the area information."
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 19;
see also Reply Br. 2) that Slamka does not disclose the limitation
"determining a haptic effect based in part on the alert."
The Examiner found that the vibrational feedback for the navigation
system of Slamka corresponds to the limitation "determining a haptic effect
based in part on the alert." (Final Act. 2-3 (citing ,r,r 23, 24, 39, 40, 171,
183); see also Ans. 3.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Claim 1 recites "determining a haptic effect" ( emphasis added). One
relevant plain meaning for "haptic" is "relating to or based on the sense of
touch." MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 528 (10th ed.
1999). Moreover, Appellants' Specification discloses that "[ m Jany devices
further include capability for haptic feedback, which can be used to
communicate information to the user via tactile means" (Spec. ,r 2 ( emphasis
added)) and "[i]n the illustrative embodiment this alert may comprise ... a
tactile alert ( e.g., a vibration, deformation, surface feature, or some other
haptic effect)" (Spec. ,r 22 (emphases added)). Thus, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret
"haptic" as relating to or based on the sense of touch, including vibration.
As discussed previously, Slamka explains that "the user [is provided]
with audible notification and feedback to guide and direct the user within the
4
Appeal 2018-002112
Application 14/697,680
user's environment." (i-f 28.) Slamka further explains that "[a]ny
combination of visual, audio, and touch (e.g., vibration) feedback can be
used in any of the embodiments of the disclosed assisted navigation
systems." (i-f 183.) Because Slamka explains that the notification and
feedback to guide and direct the user within the user's environment can also
be a vibration, Slamka discloses the limitation "determining a haptic effect
based in part on the alert."
Appellants argue that
[ t ]his simple statement ["[ a ]ny combination of visual, audio, and
touch ( e.g., vibration) feedback can be used in any of the
embodiments of the disclosed assisted navigation systems"
(i-f 183)] includes no discussion whatsoever of the determination
of a haptic effect, much less "determining a haptic effect based
in part on the alert," as is required by claim 1.
(App. Br. 19.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Slamka explains that the
feedback it discloses includes vibration. (i-f 183.) As discussed previously,
the under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants'
Specification, we interpret "haptic" as including vibrations. (See, e.g., Spec.
i122.)
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Slamka describes the
limitation "determining a haptic effect based in part on the alert."
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 19; see
also Reply Br. 2) that Slamka does not disclose the limitation "determining a
visual effect based in part on the alert."
The Examiner found that the visual feedback for the navigation
system of Slamka corresponds to the limitation "determining a visual effect
based in part on the alert." (Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 3.) We agree with
the Examiner's findings.
5
Appeal 2018-002112
Application 14/697,680
Slamka explains that "[i]n examples in which users without vision
impairment ... use the disclosed assisted guidance navigation system, the
feedback provided to the user can be any suitable feedback, including visual
feedback including but not limited to photos, video, light bursts, and the
like." (i-f 183.) Because Slamka explains that the notification and feedback
to guide and direct the user within the user's environment can also be visual
( e.g., photos, video, or light bursts), Slamka discloses the limitation
"determining a visual effect based in part on the alert."
Appellants argue that "examples of elements recited by claim 1 for
which the Office Action [provides] no citation to the cited reference" include
the limitation "determining a visual effect based in part on the alert." (App.
Br. 18-19.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner cited to
paragraph 183 of Slamka. (Final Act. 2-3.) Other than providing a
conclusory statement that "the Office Action includes no citation,"
Appellants have not provided any arguments or evidence as to why the
Examiner's findings with respect to Slamka are improper.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Slamka describes the
limitation "determining a visual effect based in part on the alert."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 21 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
6
Appeal 2018-002112
Application 14/697,680
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 21, as well as dependent claims
12-20 and 22, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7