Ellen LetendreDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 27, 202015057933 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/057,933 03/01/2016 Ellen Letendre P2015-11-13 (290110.649) 4136 70336 7590 05/27/2020 Seed IP Law Group/DISH Technologies (290110) 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2020 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): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ELLEN LETENDRE Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as DISH Technologies L.L.C., formerly named EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention generally relates to systems and methods for indicating a message or condition to a user through the use of haptic feedback effects on a remote control device. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for providing haptic feedback to a user of a haptic feedback remote control device, comprising: providing, by a receiving device, a user interface having a plurality of selectable elements for display on a presentation device; receiving, by the receiving device, an electronic command issued from the haptic feedback remote control device, the electronic command indicating a selection of one of the plurality of selectable elements; performing, by the receiving device, an action corresponding with the indicated selection; transmitting, by the receiving device, a haptic feedback command to the haptic feedback remote control device in response to the performing the action corresponding with the indicated selection; and causing, by the receiving device, a haptic feedback device within the haptic feedback remote control device, to be activated based on the haptic feedback command, to provide a haptic feedback effect to a user of the haptic feedback remote control device, the haptic feedback effect indicating confirmation of the performed action corresponding with the indicated selection. Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Levesque et al. (US 2016/0147333 A1; published May 26, 2016) (“Levesque”). Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Levesque and Cobbett et al. (US 2016/0135695 A1; published May 19, 2016 (“Cobbett”).2 ANALYSIS Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 18–20. Appellant argues Levesque does not disclose “transmitting, by the received device, a haptic feedback command to the haptic feedback remote control device in response to the performing the action corresponding with the indicated selection” and “the haptic feedback effect indicating confirmation of the performed action corresponding with the indicated selection,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues that “[t]he haptic signal sent to the haptic output device in Levesque ’333 is not in response to performing the action corresponding with the indicated selection.” Id. According to Appellant, Levesque does not disclose sending a haptic signal in response to decreasing the size of the photograph, but instead sending in response to deformation or other signals from the touch sensor. Id. at 9. Appellant argues that mapping the 2 In the Answer, the Examiner clarified that claim 17 should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth for claim 8. Ans. 6. Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 4 deformation signal to functions associated with the user interface is not actually performing the action and is not confirmation of the performed action. Reply Br. 3. Appellant also argues that paragraphs 49–53 of Levesque do not disclose a separate receiving device and remote control device. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Levesque describes several embodiments, including those depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 6. See, e.g., Levesque ¶¶ 8–13. The Examiner identifies computing systems 236 and 604 of Figures 2 and 6, respectively, as disclosing the claimed “receiving device,” and computing devices 201 and 602 of Figures 2 and 6, respectively, as disclosing the claimed “haptic feedback remote control device.” Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 4. The Examiner further cites to paragraphs 49–53 of Levesque, which describe the haptic effect determination module 126 of Figure 1. Ans. 4. Paragraph 49 states, in part: The haptic effect determination module 126 comprises code that selects one or more haptic effects to output. In some embodiments, the haptic effect determination module 126 may comprise code that determines a haptic effect to output based on a signal from the deformation sensor 134. For example, deformations (e.g., bending the computing device 101 in varying amounts) may be mapped to functions (e.g., move to the next page in a virtual book, move several pages in the virtual book, or close the virtual book) associated with a user interface. Haptic effect determination module 126 may select different haptic effects based on the function. Levesque ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Although the haptic effect determination module is described with respect to Figure 1, Levesque describes that it may also be part of other embodiments, including those of Figure 2 and Figure 6. Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 5 See Levesque ¶ 58 (“computing system 236 also comprises . . . haptic effect determination module 226 . . . [which] may be configured to function similarly to the . . . haptic effect determination module 126 . . . depicted in FIG. 1”); ¶ 62 (“computing device 201 may comprise . . . haptic effect determination module 226 . . .); ¶ 91 (“computing device 602 (e.g., the computing device 201 of FIG. 2”)). The Examiner also relies on paragraphs 92 and 93 of Levesque, which describe Figure 6, to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Ans. 4–5. Paragraph 92 describes, in part: The user may interact with the one or more user interface controls on the computing device 602 to manipulate the photograph or otherwise interact with the photo album application. For example, the user may tap on an area of a touch-sensitive surface on the computing device 602 to select an associated photo album widget, e.g., a button configured to change the size of the virtual photograph. The computer device 602 may output an associated haptic effect, for example a vibration to notify the user that the button has been selected. . . . In some embodiments, the computing device 602 may output an associated haptic effect. For example, if the photograph is at its maximum size, the computing device 602 may output a haptic effect configured to resist against the user further stretching the computing device 602. Levesque ¶ 92 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Levesque “clearly shows that the display presents multiple input options for the user to select from, and once the user provides an input on the remote control device, a haptic feedback effect is transmitted (i.e., by the receiving device according to Fig. 2) to the remote control device to let [the] user know that the selection has been made.” Ans. 4. Paragraph 93 describes, in part: Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 6 In some embodiments, the computing system 604 may output a webpage via a web browser. The web page may comprise one or more links. A user may interact with the computing device 602 (e.g., the touch-sensitive surface) to select a link. In some embodiments, the computing device 602 may output a haptic effect associated with the interaction. Levesque ¶ 93 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “[the haptic effect associated with the interaction] guide[s] the user as to the location of the links on the webpage without the user having to look at the display of the computing system (i.e., the receiving device).” Ans. 4. Levesque describes that a function comprises a task associated with an application executing on the computing device, such as, for example, manipulating a virtual object, selecting a program option or setting, inputting data, sending data or receiving data. Levesque ¶ 18. Levesque describes that the function to perform is determined, in part, on user interaction and deformation. Id.; Abstract. As described above, Levesque teaches that deformations may be mapped to functions, and the corresponding haptic effects are selected based upon that function. Levesque ¶ 49. Levesque also teaches that interactions (e.g., selecting a button to cause some action, selecting a link to cause some action) may be associated with haptic effects. Levesque ¶¶ 92–93.3 Given that functions and interactions are associated 3 Other embodiments in Levesque also provide further examples of a “haptic effect associated with the user interaction.” For example, paragraph 78 describes In some embodiments, the computing device 404 may output a haptic effect associated with the user interaction. For example, upon the user pressing a button to cause the user’s virtual character to fire a virtual weapon, the computing device 404 Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 7 with haptic effects, and haptic effects are selected based upon the function, we are not persuaded that Levesque’s haptic effects are “not in response to performing the action corresponding with the indicated selection.” Appeal Br. 8. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Levesque’s haptic effects may indicate confirmation of the performed action corresponding with the indicated selection because it lets the user know the selection has been made without the user having to look at the display. See Ans. 4; e.g., Levesque ¶¶ 20–21. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and sustain the rejection. Appellant does not separately argue independent claims 10, 18, and 20, which recite commensurate limitations as claim 1, or dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11–16, and 19. Appeal Br. 9–10. Therefore, for the same reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. may output a haptic effect configured to simulate a gun shot. This may confirm to the user that the user’s virtual weapon has been fired and further enhance the realism of the video game. Paragraph 21 describes In the illustrated embodiment, the computing device is also configured to output a haptic effect associated with the user interaction and/or the function. For example, upon the user tapping the uppercase letter “A” on the virtual keyboard, the computing device may output a haptic effect comprising a click sensation. This may confirm to the user that the computing device has received the user’s input, without the user having to look at the touch-screen display. Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 8 Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1, and recites “causing the haptic feedback remote control device to automatically enter the haptic feedback mode by the receiving device sending a haptic feedback mode entry command to the haptic feedback remote control device.” The Examiner relies on Cobbett to teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 8 (citing Cobbett Fig. 111, ¶ 196). Specifically, the Examiner finds: The features “automatically enter the haptic feedback mode” and “a haptic feedback mode entry command” have be [sic] interpreted based on the broadest reasonable interpretation. The input device of Cobbett (i.e., the haptic feedback remote control) “performing only receive signal and generate the haptic feedback” has been interpreted to mean “automatically enter the haptic feedback mode”, and “the setting of the input device to perform only to receive signal and generate the haptic feedback” has been interpreted to mean “a haptic feedback mode entry command sent by the receiving device”. Ans. 5–6. Appellant argues there is only a “haptic feedback command,” not a “haptic feedback mode entry command” sent to the input device of Cobbett. Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, “input device 1000 of Cobbett does not enter into ‘a haptic feedback mode.’” Id.; see also Reply Br. 3–4. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Paragraph 196 of Cobbett states: The input device 1000 may further include haptic feedback features (not shown), such as a vibration motor, to communicate various alerts to the user. The input device 1000 may be configured for providing different types of haptic feedbacks, such as a steady vibration, pulsed vibration, etc. The Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 9 input device 1000 may receive signals from the external device 1002 to generate specific haptic feedback. In one embodiment, the resolution of when to generate haptic feedback and which haptic feedback to generate is performed by the external device 1002, such that the input device needs only to receive the signal and generate the haptic feedback. The external device 1002 may utilize user settings for providing specific haptic feedback in the event of a specific occurrence, e.g., an incoming phone call, an emergency alert, an activity milestone reached, or other event. Haptic feedback may be used in connection with the various applications and functions described below. Appellant’s Specification describes: Further, the haptic feedback remote 100 may include a haptic feedback enable/disable element (which may be, for example, a button 112, a sliding toggle, touch tap or any other such user interface element) which puts the haptic feedback remote 100 into a haptic feedback mode. That is, the haptic feedback remote 100 may operate in a “normal” or non-haptic feedback mode, or alternatively, the haptic feedback remote 100 may be put into a haptic feedback mode through use of a haptic feedback mode button 112. Additionally, the haptic feedback remote 100 may be put into a haptic feedback mode automatically under certain conditions. For example, if the receiving device 118 receives user input from the haptic feedback remote 100 which indicate user confusion (e.g., multiple invalid commands, or the like), then the receiving device 118 may cause the haptic feedback remote 100 to automatically enter the haptic feedback mode, in which case haptic feedback may be provided to the user via the haptic feedback remote 100. Spec. 7 (emphasis added). “[W]hen an applicant uses different terms in a claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his choice of different terms to reflect a differentiation in meaning of those terms.” See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 10 Cir. 2004). We do not see, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained, how Cobbett teaches or suggests a “haptic feedback mode entry command” that causes the haptic feedback remote control device to automatically enter a “haptic feedback mode,” as opposed to a “haptic feedback command.” Rather, Cobbett simply teaches that an input device may receive signals from an external device to generate haptic feedback (e.g., a “haptic feedback command”), similar to the disclosure in Levesque. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and, therefore, do not sustain the rejection. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and recites “wherein the receiving device is configured to transmit a haptic feedback mode entry command to the haptic feedback remote control device, and the haptic feedback remote control device is configured to enter a haptic feedback mode upon receipt of the haptic feedback mode entry command, wherein in the haptic feedback mode the haptic feedback remote control device is operable to provide haptic feedback effects.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues that the Examiner has provided no analysis or reasoning in rejecting claim 17, other than referring to the analysis of claim 7. Id. at 12. However, Appellant argues that claim 17 recites substantive limitations that claim 7 does not recite. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner states claim 17 should have been grouped with claim 8, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Levesque and Cobbett. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds the combination of Levesque and Appeal 2019-000657 Application 15/057,933 11 Cobbett teach or suggest the limitations in claim 17 in the same manner as discussed for claim 8. Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 17 for the same reasons as set forth above for dependent claim 8. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9–16, 18–20 102 Levesque 1–7, 9–16, 18–20 8, 17 103 Levesque, Cobbett 8, 17 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–16, 18–20 8, 17 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation