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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/31/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 13-15, 17-21, 25, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0234982 A1 to Kang et al. (Kang) in view of US 2013/0300696 A1 to Haran et al. (Haran).
As to claim 1, Kang discloses an apparatus comprising: interface circuitry (423) to receive touch event location data including locations of rejected of touch events on a display screen of an electronic device (Fig. 4, Par. 59), the rejected touch events corresponding to touch events by a user for which outputs are not generated (Fig. 4, Par. 59 and Par 65 teaches “when at least three node points contacting the touch input are recognized, the touch determining unit 425 may determine that the size of the touch or the occupied area to be at or above the reference threshold and may identify the corresponding touch input to be an invalid input, such as a touch inputted by a palm);
machine-readable instructions (Fig. 4, Par. 127, e.g. program instructions include machine code that may be executed by the computer); and
at least one processor circuit (420) to operate based on the machine-readable instructions to instantiate (Fig. 4, Pars. 55-56, 127):
display mapping circuitry (425) to identify an area of the display screen covered by the portion of a body (e.g. finger or palm) of the user based on the shape of the portion of the body (Fig. 4, Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67, e.g. a finger has a shape that occupies a region on the display when touching the display); and
pixel identification circuitry (425 and 427) to:
identify respective ones of pixels of the display screen in the area of the display screen (Fig. 4, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67); and
cause a property (e.g. turning pixels off) of the respective ones of the pixels to be adjusted (Fig. 4, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67).
Kang does not expressly disclose body shape identification circuitry to determine a shape of a portion of a body of the user covering the display screen based on the locations of the rejected touch events.
Haran discloses body shape identification circuitry to determine a shape of a portion of a body (e.g. palm) of the user covering the display screen based on the locations of the rejected touch events (Figs.5, 6A-6B, Par. 70 and 72-73, see also Par. 13 defining palm input as inadvertent input, e.g. any input obtained within the defined potential palm input area is invalidated as input provided from a fingertip touch as disclosed in Par 70 and the touch regions are classified as fingertip input region 41 and palm input region 49, based on size, shape and/or amplitude output of the regions as disclosed in Par 72).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Haran to track intended and unintended touch thereby improve recognition and/or functionality as suggested by Haran (Par. 12).
As to claim 19, see claim 1 rejection and motivation above. Kang further discloses a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions (Par. 127). The limitation “unintended touch event” is taught by Kang wherein Par 65 of Kang teaches “when at least three node points contacting the touch input are recognized, the touch determining unit 425 may determine that the size of the touch or the occupied area to be at or above the reference threshold and may identify the corresponding touch input to be an invalid input, such as a touch inputted by a palm”
As to claim 2, Kang discloses the pixel identification circuitry (425 and 427) is to cause the pixels to at least one of turn off (Fig. 4, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67).
As to claim 10, see claims 1 and 2 rejection and motivation above. Kang as modified further discloses an electronic device (e.g. mobile terminal) (Figs. 2, 4, Pars. 40, 53) comprising: a display (400) (Figs. 2, 4, Pars. 41, 53); at least one memory (127) (Par. 127); machine-readable instructions (Par. 127); and at least one processor circuit (427) to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions (Fig. 4, Pars. 69, 127) to:
classify touch events on the display as unintended touch events (Kang’s Fig. 4, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67; Haran’s Figs. 6A-6B, Par. 72, see also Par. 13);
identifying an area of the display covered by the shape (Kang’s Fig. 4, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67; Haran’s Figs. 6A-6B, Par. 72, see also Par. 13); and
and cause a brightness of the area of the display to decrease based on the identification of the area (Kang’s Fig. 4, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67).
Kang does not expressly disclose determine a shape covering the display based on locations of the unintended touch events, the shape corresponding to a portion of a hand of a user.
Haran discloses body shape identification circuitry to determine a shape of a portion of a body (e.g. palm) of the user covering the display screen based on the locations of the rejected touch events (Figs.5, 6A-6B, Par. 70 and 72-74, see also Par. 13 defining palm input as inadvertent input, e.g. any input obtained within the defined potential palm input area is invalidated as input provided from a fingertip touch as disclosed in Par 70 and the touch regions are classified as fingertip input region 41 and palm input region 49, based on size, shape and/or amplitude output of the regions as disclosed in Par 72).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Haran to track intended and unintended touch thereby improve recognition and/or functionality as suggested by Haran (Par. 12).
As to claim 9, Kang as modified discloses the area is a first area (450) of the display screen and the interface circuitry (16) is to receive the touch event location data (Haran’s Fig. 1, Pars. 60, 66) during use of a stylus on a second area (e.g. region of line 25) of the display screen (Haran’s Fig. 4, Pars. 67-68). See claim 1 motivation above.
As to claim 20, see claim 9 rejection and motivation above.
As to claim 13, Kang discloses the processor circuitry (420) is to detect a presence of the portion of the hand relative to the display based on data corresponding to signals output by one or more of an image sensor or a presence detection sensor (410) of the electronic device (Fig. 4, Par. 54).
As to claim 14, Kang discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to: generate a bitmap identifying the portion of the hand relative to the display; and identify pixels of the display to be adjusted based on the bitmap (Figs. 5A-6F, Par. 65).
As to claim 15, Kang discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to cause the brightness of the area (e.g. touch area) to decrease by causing the identified pixels to turn off or dim (Figs. 4, 5A-6F, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67).
As to claim 17, Kang discloses the area is a first area and the processor circuitry is to: detect change from the first area (e.g. 603 of Fig. 6A) being covered by the portion of the hand to a second area (e.g. 607 of Fig. 6C) of the display covered by the portion of the hand (Figs. 4, 5A-6F, Par. 64, 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65); and cause the brightness of the first area (e.g. 603 of Figs. 6A, 6C) and the second area (e.g. 607 of Figs. 6A, 6C) of the display to be adjusted in response to the change (Figs. 4, 5A-6F, Par. 64, 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67, e.g. finger moved from region 603 to region 607 causes region 603 to be turned on and region 607 to be turned off).
As to claim 18, Kang discloses the processor circuitry is to cause a brightness of the first area (e.g. 603 of Figs. 6A, 6C) to increase and a brightness of the second area (e.g. 607 of Figs. 6A, 6C) to decrease in response to the change (Figs. 4, 5A-6F, Par. 64, 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67, e.g. finger moved from region 603 to region 607 causes region 603 to be turned on and region 607 to be turned off).
As to claim 21, Kang discloses the instructions, when executed, cause the processor circuitry to detect the presence of the portion of the body in contact with the display screen based on a second touch event (Figs. 4, 5A-6F, Par. 64, 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65).
As to claim 25, see claim 19 rejection and motivation above. Kang as modified further discloses define an area of the display screen covered by the portion of the body based on the body portion shape (Kang’s Fig. 4, Par. 82, see also Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67; Haran’s Figs. 6A-6B, Par. 72, see also Par. 13); to determine an amount of the display screen covered by the portion of the body(e.g. finger or palm) (Kang’s Fig. 4, Par. 65, see also Pars. 60, 62, 82; Haran’s Figs. 6A-6B, Par. 72, see also Par. 13); and cause the pixels in the area to be adjusted in response to the amount satisfying a display screen coverage threshold (Fig. 4, Par. 65, see also Pars. 60, 62, 67, 82).
As to claim 32, Kang as modified discloses predict movement of the portion of the hand based on the locations of the unintended touch events (Haran’s Pars. 21, 68, 70); and identify a second area of the display to be covered by the portion of the hand based on the predicted movement events (Haran’s Pars. 21, 68, 70). The motivation would have been to define the area of potential palm input in relation to the moving direction as suggested by Haran (see Par. 21).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0234982 A1 to Kang et al. (Kang) and US 2013/0300696 A1 to Haran et al. (Haran); in view of US 2014/0351768 A1 to Park et al. (Park).
As to claim 3, Kang discloses one or more of the at least one processor circuitry (420) (Fig. 4, Pars. 55-56) including one or more of:
at least one of a central processor unit (427), a graphics processor unit (427) (omit or a digital signal processor) (Fig. 4, Pars. 68-69), the at least one of the central processor unit, the graphics processor unit, (omit or the digital signal processor) having control circuitry, arithmetic and logic circuitry to perform one or more first operations corresponding to instructions (Par. 127), and one or more registers to store a result of the one or more first operations, the instructions in the apparatus (Par. 127);
one or more of the at least one processor circuit to perform at least one of the first operations (omit or, the second operations, or the third operations) to instantiate (Fig. 4, Pars. 55-56, 127).
Kang does not expressly disclose hovering body detection circuitry to detect a presence of the portion of the body hovering over the display screen.
Park discloses hovering body detection circuitry to detect a presence of the portion of the body hovering over the display screen (Figs. 2D-4B, Par. 40).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Park to provide an improved functional capability as suggested by Park (Par. 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0234982 A1 to Kang et al. (Kang) and US 2013/0300696 A1 to Haran et al. (Haran); in view of US 2023/0350260 A1 to Martinson et al. (Martinson).
As to claim 7, Kang does not expressly disclose display temperature analysis circuitry to perform a comparison of a temperature of the display screen to a threshold; and parameter adjustment identification circuitry to cause the pixels in the area to turn off.
Martinson discloses display temperature analysis circuitry to perform a comparison of a temperature of the display screen to a threshold (Par. 212); and parameter adjustment identification circuitry to cause the pixels in the area to turn off (Par. 212).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Martinson to prevent damage to the display as suggested by Martinson (Par. 212).
Claim(s) 8, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0234982 A1 to Kang et al. (Kang) and US 2013/0300696 A1 to Haran et al. (Haran); in view of US 2023/0350260 A1 to Martinson et al. (Martinson) and US 2012/0311357 A1 to Andrews.
As to claim 8, Kang does not expressly disclose the parameter adjustment identification circuitry is to cause one or more of a processing speed or a charging rate of the electronic device to be adjusted.
Andrews discloses the parameter adjustment identification circuitry (42) is to cause one or more of a processing speed (see Figs. 6-7; Pars. 1, 30) or a charging rate (Par. 39) of the electronic device to be adjusted (see Figs. 6-7; Pars. 31, 39, 44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Andrews to improve user’s experience as suggested by Andrews (Par. 3).
As to claim 22, Kang does not expressly disclose determine a temperature of the display screen based on temperature sensor data; perform a comparison of the temperature to a display screen temperature threshold; and cause a battery charging rate of the electronic device to be adjusted based on the comparison.
Martinson discloses determine a temperature of the display screen based on temperature sensor data; perform a comparison of the temperature to a display screen temperature threshold (Par. 212).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Martinson to prevent damage to the display as suggested by Martinson (Par. 212).
Andrews discloses cause a battery charging rate of the electronic device to be adjusted based on the comparison (see Figs. 6-7; Pars. 31, 39, 44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Andrews to improve user’s experience as suggested by Andrews (Par. 3).
As to claim 23, Kang does not expressly disclose determine a temperature of the display screen based on temperature sensor data; perform a comparison of the temperature to a display screen temperature threshold; and cause a clock speed associated with the electronic device to be adjusted based on the comparison.
Martinson discloses determine a temperature of the display screen based on temperature sensor data; perform a comparison of the temperature to a display screen temperature threshold (Par. 212).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Martinson to prevent damage to the display as suggested by Martinson (Par. 212).
Andrews discloses cause a clock speed associated with the electronic device to be adjusted based on the comparison (see Figs. 6-7; Pars. 31, 39, 44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Andrews to improve user’s experience as suggested by Andrews (Par. 3).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0234982 A1 to Kang et al. (Kang) and US 2013/0300696 A1 to Haran et al. (Haran); in view of US 2010/0020272A1 to Kim et al. (Kim).
As to claim 16, Kang does not expressly disclose the processor circuitry is to cause the brightness of the area to decrease by causing a brightness of a blacklight to be adjusted.
Kim discloses cause the brightness of the area to decrease by causing a brightness of a blacklight to be adjusted (Par. 12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kang with the teaching of Kim to adjust contrast ratio as suggested by Kim (Par. 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the Applicant's Remarks, the Applicant argues that Haran does not teach "body shape identification circuitry to determine a shape of a portion of a body of a user covering a display screen based on locations of rejected touch events. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kang teaches identifying a portion of a body of a user covering (by touching) a display screen based on locations of rejected touch events (e.g. finger or palm) (Figs. 4, Pars. 60, 62, 65, 67), and Haran teaches a body shape identification circuitry to determine a shape of a portion of a body of a user covering a display screen (Figs 5, 6A-6B, Pars. 70 and 72). Specifically, Kang teaches the finger or palm touching/covering the touch screen are identified by the size of the touched/covered area (not by the shape of the touched/covered area), and Haran teaches the unintended touch/covered area (e.g. palm) may be identified by the shape of the touch/covered area.
As for claims 10 and 19, these claims are taught by Kang in view of Haran as set forth in the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2015/0084997 A1 to Kim et al. teaches a control unit of a display may detect that a part of the screen is covered and thereby switch off the light-emitting pixels in the covered part of the screen, while keeping the light emitting pixels on in the uncovered part of the screen.
US 2020/0272268 A1 to Shin et al. teaches a display with a processor configured to, based on a touch shape that corresponds to the touch input being a palm shape, identify a user's body size based on the identified touch area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 4:00PM, 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights