NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claims 17-36 are pending in this broadening reissue of U.S. Patent No. 11,537,248 (hereinafter “the '248 patent” issued from application no. 17/263,770 (hereinafter “the '770 application”). Claims 1-16 are cancelled.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
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 ‘248 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Information Material to Patentability
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.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment filed 8/9/2023 has been entered and considered. Claims 1-16 have been cancelled and new claims 17-36 have been added. Accordingly, claims 17-36 are pending.
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.
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:
circuitry connected to the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes, wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes are arranged to form a plurality of unit cells and configured to be electrically separated from each other,
(claim 17)
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. The corresponding structure in the ‘248 patent for the claimed circuity includes touch sensor 10, sensing unit 11, driving unit 12, and control unit 13 in the configuration shown in Fig. 1a and Fig. 7.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The “touch input device 1000” described in the specification of the ‘248 patent is not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
REJECTIONS BASED ON DEFECTIVE OATH/DECLARATION
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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.
Claims 17-36 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the 8/9/2023 Declaration is set forth below. The reissue declaration states:
The Patent contains errors in that Patentee claimed less than it had a right to claim in the issued patent. This continuation reissue application seeks to broaden the claimed subject matter by claiming 20 new claims. Proposed independent claim 17 recites a touch input device, that comprises, among other things, a second-first electrode and a second-second electrode wherein a portion of the second-first electrode is disposed closer to at least a portion of at least one of a plurality of first electrodes than the at least a portion of the second-second electrode. Support for the new claims can be found in at least column 30, line 44 to column 31 line 41, column 5 lines 52 to 61, and Figure 7 of the issued patent.
MPEP 1414 II. states:
…For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and 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. The corresponding corrective action which has been taken to correct the original patent need not be identified in the oath/declaration. If the initial reissue oath/declaration "states at least one error" in the original patent, and, in addition, recites the specific corrective action taken in the reissue application, the oath/declaration would be considered acceptable, even though the corrective action statement is not required.
(C) It is not sufficient for an oath/declaration to merely state "this application is being filed to correct errors in the patent which may be noted from the changes made in the disclosure." Rather, the oath/declaration must specifically identify an error. In addition, it is not sufficient to merely reproduce the claims with brackets and underlining and state that such will identify the error. Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.
A statement in the 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. Such a statement would be no better than saying in the reissue oath or declaration that "this application is being filed to correct errors in the patent which may be noted from the change made by adding new claim 10." In both cases, the error has not been identified.
While the declaration points to new limitations added to newly presented claim 17, it fails to identify which claim the application seeks to broaden and also fails to identify the specific claim language wherein the error lies. Correction is required.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 - RECAPTURE
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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.
Claims 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
A reissue will not be granted to "recapture" claimed subject matter which was surrendered in an application to obtain the original patent. See MPEP §1412.20. A three step process is used to apply the recapture rule:
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(See MPEP §1412.02(I))
Claim 17 omits/broadens claim limitations related to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution. During prosecution of the '770 Application, the Examiner indicated that dependent claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and further stated:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitations of claim 1 in addition to "the predetermined value is 16". A predetermined value of 16 is not taught and would not be obvious in the closest prior art to Bytheway. Because a predetermined value can be any value predetermined in Bytheway, there is innumerable possibilities. Nor does any other prior art disclose ALL features of claims 1+7.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitations of claim 1 in addition to "wherein a pair of a predetermined first electrode among the first electrodes included in the touch window area and a predetermined second electrode among the second electrodes do not exist in other window areas other than the touch window area". The closest prior art to Bytheway does not disclose these features, nor would they be obvious because some signals are repeated over the different touch regions (Bytheway's Figs. 3-5). Nor does any other prior art disclose ALL features of claims 1+8.
(the ‘770 application, non-final mailed 4/18/2022, p. 17)
On 7/18/2022, Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite the limitations of dependent claim 7 (now patent claim 1), and added new claim 11 reciting the features of dependent claim 8 (now patent claim 9), which led to a notice of allowance mailed on 8/10/2022.
These claim limitations are now omitted from new claim 17. Thus, the broader aspects of the instant reissue claims relate to the subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution. Furthermore, since Applicant fails to materially narrow the instant reissue claims in other respects, the recapture rule has not been avoided.
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.
Claims 17-36 are 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.
Applicant points to Fig. 7, Col. 30: 44 – col. 31: 41; col. 5: 52-61 of the ‘248 patent specification as an explanation of support for new claim 17. New claim recites “a second-first electrode” and “a second-second electrode”. However, the cited portions of the ‘248 patent are silent with respect to this terminology. Further explanation and/or amendment to the claim is needed to show corresponding support and consistency with the ‘248 patent specification.
Additionally, new claim 17 recites: “wherein the at least a portion of the second-first electrode is disposed closer to the at least a portion of the at least one of the plurality of first electrodes than the at least a portion of the second-second electrode”. However, the cited sections in Applicant’s explanation of support do not support this claim language. Further explanation and/or amendment is required to show adequate support.
Rejection Based on Original Patent Requirement
MPEP §1412.01 states that the reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent. MPEP §1412.01 further provides guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are “for the invention disclosed in the original patent” as:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) the newly claimed invention is clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
The Fed. Cir. addressed the “original patent” requirement in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court stated that “a reissue claim is for the ‘same invention’ if the original patent specification fully describes the claimed inventions, but not if the broader claims ‘are [] merely suggested or indicated in the original specification.” Antares, 112 USPQ2d at 1868 (citing U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Industrial Chemicals). Further, the court stated “‘it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.’ Rather, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares, 112 USPQ2d at 1871 (citing U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Industrial Chemicals) (citation omitted), or that “the exact embodiment claimed on reissue [be] expressly disclosed in the specification.” Id.
Recently, the Fed. Cir. stated:
Thus, for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “[I]t must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.” Indus Chems, 315 US at 676 (emphasis in Forum US). Stated differently, the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares, 771 F.3d at 1362.1
Claims 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 because they are not for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent.
Applicant points to Fig. 7, Col. 30: 44 – col. 31: 41; col. 5: 52-61 of the ‘248 patent specification as an explanation of support for new claim 17. New claim recites “a second-first electrode” and “a second-second electrode”. However, the cited portions of the ‘248 patent are silent with respect to this terminology. Further explanation and/or amendment to the claim is needed to show corresponding support and consistency with the ‘248 patent specification.
Additionally, new claim 17 recites: “wherein the at least a portion of the second-first electrode is disposed closer to the at least a portion of the at least one of the plurality of first electrodes than the at least a portion of the second-second electrode”. However, the cited sections in Applicant’s explanation of support do not support this claim language. Accordingly, the Examiner does not find an unequivocal disclosure in the ‘248 patent for these newly added limitations and thus are not proper claims in reissue under the original patent requirement.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cameron Saadat whose telephone number is (571)272-4443. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Hetul Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4184. 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.
/Cameron Saadat/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Woo H Choi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 Forum US Inc. v. Flow Valve LLC, 926 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Prosecution Insights